Robertson v. NASA
- Laura Swain
- 1:23-cv-08723
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Robertson v. NASA, Judge Swain dismissed Robertson’s pro se complaint as frivolous and denied leave to amend.
Twalla Jean Robertson’s action against NASA and Bill Nelson was dismissed as frivolous; she was not allowed to amend, and fee-free status was denied for an appeal.
What happened
In Robertson v. NASA, Twalla Jean Robertson sued NASA and Bill Nelson, alleging that NASA subjected her and her children to experimental research involving alien DNA, stalking, and other wrongdoing. She sought money damages and identified cruel and unusual punishment as the right that was violated.
The court reviewed the complaint under the law governing lawsuits filed without paying filing fees. It concluded that Robertson’s allegations lacked factual support and were irrational, so the complaint had to be dismissed as frivolous.
Judge Swain dismissed the complaint, declined to allow an amendment, terminated all other pending matters, and directed entry of judgment. The court also denied fee-free status for any appeal after certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Robertson v. NASA · No. 1:23-cv-08723
- Laura Swain
- Apr. 15, 2024
Background
Twalla Jean Robertson, representing herself, sued the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and Bill Nelson, identified as NASA’s administrator. She invoked federal-question jurisdiction and stated that her constitutional or statutory right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment had been violated. She sought money damages.
Robertson alleged that she had been part of NASA experimental research for 46 years involving the insertion of alien DNA into human DNA to create a “sub human species.” She also alleged that, after losing a potential placement with the company, she had been stalked, placed on a blacklist, treated as a national-security breach, and subjected to violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. She further alleged that her children had been taken from her to participate in the research.
The court had previously allowed Robertson to proceed without paying filing fees. Under the screening law for such cases, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the court must dismiss a complaint that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks money from an immune defendant. The court also noted that it must dismiss a case when it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, while reading self-represented pleadings liberally.
Court’s Analysis
The court held that Robertson’s claims were factually frivolous. A claim is factually frivolous when its allegations are clearly baseless, fanciful, fantastic, or delusional. The court explained that Robertson provided no factual basis for her assertions that NASA and Nelson had subjected her or her children to experimental research involving alien DNA. Her allegations were conclusory claims and suspicions without a plausible factual predicate.
Because the court determined that the defects could not be cured by amendment, it declined to give Robertson permission to file an amended complaint.
Disposition
The court dismissed the complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). It terminated all other pending matters and directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment. The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Robertson permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.