Justice v. Tian

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

BRENDA JUSTICE, Plaintiff, -against- GUOLI TIAN, Chairman of the Board, Executive Director, Bank of China Limited, New York, - Defendant? *~

14-CV-1843 (LAP) ORDER OF DISMISSAL

LORETTA A. PRESKA, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiff, who appears pro se, brings this action under the Court's federal question subject matter jurisdiction. By order dated April 18, 2014, Plaintiffs request to proceed in forma pauperis was granted. The Court dismisses the complaint for the reasons set forth below. STANDARD OF REVIEW The Court must dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint, or portion thereof, that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see Livingston v. Adirondack Beverage Co., 141 F.3d 434, 437 (2d Cir. 1998). While the law mandates dismissal on any of these grounds, the Court is "obliged to construe pro se pleadings liberally," Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir. 2009), and interpret them to raise the "strongest [claims] that they suggest," Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

BACKGROUND Plaintiff states that the basis of jurisdiction for her action is that: [t]his [C]ourt has constitutional jurisdiction oyer treaties so as that force by the United States can not be started even for the right of navigation w[h]ere Chinese patrol vessels ... block and board foreign ships passing through Chinese-claimed waters and [the] United States can't use force for the occupation of South China Sea islands with[out] a warrant of this [C]ourt. The United States[] may not start the use of force without a warrant of this [C]ourt. Plaintiff alleges that the events giving rise to her claims included an event where "three Chinese government ships ... briefly entered what Japan sees as its territorial waters near the disputed islands[] controlled by Japan[] but also claimed by China. This was] the latest in such occasional entries by Chinese ships." Plaintiff states that on "Sunday, Japan's Defen[s]e Minister Itsunori Onodera said the fishing rules approved by China's southern Hainan province and which came into effect on January 1, had left the international community jittery, coming so soon after China unilaterally launched an air defen[s]e identification zone late last year." Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Guoli Tian, the Chairman of the Board and Executive Director of the Bank of China Limited in New York, has laundered money and used "bank money to finance [and] exploit fishing, oil [and] any other commodity in [the] d[is]puted seas that [have] not [been] agreed to by the United Nations[.] [sic]" Plaintiff alleges that the actions of Defendant Tian and the actions of what appears to be Chinese authorities alleged above have caused the "reckless endangerment of [her] life ... [and] all human life." Plaintiff alleges that these actions have been taken "so as to take titles to lands[,] waters[,] and airs for the purpose of profiteering [and] piracy." Plaintiff further describes these actions as "racketeering." Plaintiff seeks relief from this Court that would "stop [Defendant Tian] from using bank money to finance [and] exploit fishing, oil or any other commodity in [the] d[is]puted seas and islands that are not agreed to by the United Nations[.] [sic]" Plaintiff also seeks relief from this

Court that would compel Defendant Tian to "show patriotic support for [the] United States so that he may run a United States bank." Plaintiff also requests as relief that, "[b]y taking part in this [C]ourt[,] the Republic of China agrees not [to] sho[o]t at... United States forces on or in any land[,] sea[,] or air and for any dispute of potential shooting war ... to come before this [C]ourt to be resolved." DISCUSSION A. Plaintiffs claims Plaintiff’s claims must be dismissed as frivolous. Under .the in forma pauperis statute, a court must dismiss a case if it determines that the action is frivolous or malicious. See § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). A claim is "frivolous when either: (1) the factual contentions are clearly baseless, such as when allegations are the product of delusion or fantasy; or (2) the claim is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory." Livingston, 141 F.3d at 437 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In addition, a court has "no obligation to entertain pure speculation and conjecture." Gallop v. Cheney, 642 F.3d 364, 368 (2d Cir. 2011) (finding as frivolous and baseless allegations that set forth a fantastical alternative history of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks). The Court, after reviewing Plaintiffs claims, finds that they Jack any arguable basis in law or in fact. SepMeitzkev. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325,0:989). Plaintiff’s factual allegations rise to the level of the irrational and there is no legal theory on which she may rely. See Livingston, 141 F.3dat437. Plaintiff s claims are therefore dismissed as frivolous. See § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). In deference to Plaintiffs pro se status, the Court would normally direct her to submit an amended complaint, but the Court finds that Plaintiffs claims cannot be cured with an amendment. Where an amendment would be futile, leave to amend is not required. Hill v.

Curcione, 657 F.3d 116, 123 (2d Cir. 2011); Salahuddin v. Cuomo, 861 F.2d 40, 42 (2d Cir. 1988). B. Possible filing bar By order dated June 27, 2013, Plaintiff was warned by the Court "that further duplicative or frivolous litigation in this Court may result in an order barring Plaintiff from filing new actions in forma pauperis without prior permission." Justice v. City of New York, No. 13-CV-3319 (JPO), at 8 (S.D.N.Y. June 27, 2013). Despite that warning, Plaintiff filed the complaint commencing the present action, which has been dismissed as frivolous. Accordingly, Plaintiff is ordered to show cause by affirmation why she should not be barred from filing any future civil action in this Court in forma pauperis without first obtaining permission from this Court to file her complaint. See Moates v. Barkley, 147 F.3d 207, 208 (2d Cir. 1998) ("The unequivocal rule in this circuit is that the district court may not impose a filing injunction on a litigant sua sponte without providing the litigant with notice and an opportunity to be heard."). Plaintiff shall submit to this Court, within thirty days of the date of this order, a written affirmation setting forth good cause why such an injunction should not be imposed upon her by this Court. Should Plaintiff fail to submit her affirmation within the time directed, or should Plaintiffs affirmation fail to set forth good cause why this injunction should not be entered, she/ shall be barred from filing any future civil action in former pauperis in-this Court without first obtaining permission from this Court to do so. CONCLUSION The Clerk of Court is directed to assign this action to my docket and to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff, noting service on the docket. This action is dismissed as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B)(i).

Plaintiff is directed to, within thirty days, show cause by written affirmation why an order should not be entered barring her from filing any future civil action in forma pauperis in this Court without prior permission of the Court. An Affirmation Under 28 U.S.C. § 1651 form is attached to this order, which Plaintiff should complete as specified. The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). SO ORDERED. Dated: April 28, 2014 ^ LORETTA A. PRESKA Chief United States District Judge

Commodity's In Disputed Seas in Court

China unilaterally launched an air defense identification zone late last year. Plaintiff, BRENDA JUSTICE, 14-CV-1843 Claimed the actions of what appears to be Chinese authorities alleged have caused the "reckless endangerment of her life ... and all human life." Plaintiff alleges that these actions have been taken "so as to take titles to lands[,] waters[,] and airs for the purpose of profiteering [and] piracy." Plaintiff further describes these actions as "racketeering."

Plaintiff states that the basis of jurisdiction for her action is that: this Court has constitutional jurisdiction over treaties so as that force by the United States can not be started even for the right of navigation where Chinese patrol vessels ... block and board foreign ships passing through Chinese-claimed waters and the United States can't use force for the occupation of South China Sea islands without a warrant of this Court. The United States[] may not start the use of force without a warrant of this Court. Bank of A China, has laundered money and used "bank money to finance and exploit fishing, oil and any other commodity in the disputed seas that have not been agreed to by the United Nations." Plaintiff alleges that the actions of Defendant T and the actions of what appears to be Chinese authorities alleged above have caused the "reckless endangerment of her life ... and all human life." Plaintiff alleges that these actions have been taken "so as to take titles to lands, waters[,] and airs for the purpose of profiteering and piracy." Plaintiff further describes these actions as "racketeering."

Plaintiff seeks relief from this Court that would "stop Defendant Bank of A China, from using bank money to finance and exploit fishing, oil or any other commodity in the disputed seas and islands that are not agreed to by the United Nations. " Plaintiff also seeks relief from this

Court that would compel Defendant Bank of A China to "show patriotic support for the United States so that it may run a United States bank." Plaintiff also requests as relief that, "by taking part in this Court, the Republic of China agrees not to shoot at... United States forces on or in any land[,] sea[,] or air and for any dispute of potential shooting war ... to come before this Court to be resolved."