Moshir v. John/Jane Doe
- Laura Swain
- 1:23-cv-06242
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Moshir v. John/Jane Doe, Chief Judge Swain dismissed Al Moshir’s unclear, frivolous complaint for failing to state a claim.
Al Moshir’s case was dismissed at the court’s screening stage because the complaint was illegible and failed to state an understandable claim. The order also warned of a possible future restriction on filing new actions without prepaying fees and denied fee-free status for an appeal.
What happened
In Moshir v. John/Jane Doe, Al Moshir filed a handwritten complaint while representing himself. The court said the complaint was largely illegible, did not clearly identify whom he intended to sue, and did not explain what happened or what legal claims he was bringing. He sought $100 billion and other relief.
The court ruled that the complaint did not provide enough understandable facts to give defendants fair notice of the claims, as required by the federal pleading rules. It therefore did not state a claim for relief and was also frivolous under the statute governing complaints filed without prepaying fees. The court declined to allow an amended complaint because it found no indication that the defects could be fixed and noted Al Moshir’s pattern of filing numerous similar cases.
Chief United States District Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed the complaint and directed the Clerk to enter judgment. She warned that further frivolous or harassing litigation could lead to a filing restriction requiring prior permission to bring new cases without prepaying fees. The court also denied fee-free status for an appeal, certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Moshir v. John/Jane Doe · No. 1:23-cv-06242
- Laura Swain
- Oct. 10, 2023
Background
Al Moshir proceeded without a lawyer and had previously been granted permission to file without prepaying fees. The complaint was handwritten, with illegible writing in the margins, and sought $100 billion in damages and other relief. Its legible portions referred generally to federal questions, international courts, and entities or officials, but did not clearly identify the defendants, the events at issue, or the claims being asserted.
The court noted that this action was one of nearly two dozen cases Al Moshir had filed in the preceding few months. The opinion states that he had brought at least 18 actions in the previous four months, including several that had already been dismissed.
Legal standard
Because Al Moshir was allowed to proceed without prepaying fees, the court was required to screen the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). That law requires dismissal of a complaint that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks money from a defendant immune from such relief. The court also must dismiss a case when it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 requires a complaint to provide a short and plain statement explaining the claim and enough factual detail to make relief plausible. A complaint may be dismissed when it is so confused, vague, or unintelligible that defendants cannot receive fair notice of the claims against them.
Court’s analysis
The court said that even after giving special consideration to the filing because Al Moshir was representing himself, the complaint did not explain whom he intended to sue, what had happened, or why he was entitled to relief. The complaint therefore failed to comply with Rule 8 and failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted. The court also characterized the complaint as frivolous.
Courts generally give a self-represented plaintiff an opportunity to amend a defective complaint. Here, however, the court concluded that the complaint did not indicate that its defects could be corrected. The court also declined to allow amendment because the action appeared to be part of a pattern of repetitive, non-meritorious filings.
Disposition
The court dismissed Al Moshir’s complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted and as frivolous. It did not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice. The court warned that further vexatious or frivolous litigation could result in an order barring Al Moshir from filing new actions without prepaying fees unless he first obtained permission. It denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees and directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.