Heriveaux v. Fema, 1:15-cv-02326

Pro se plaintiff Magaly E. Heriveaux filed suit against FEMA and then filed an "Affidavit/Affirmation" construed by the Court as an amended complaint.
Plaintiff alleged unspecified "security breaches" in a "portal," requested its shutdown, sought $5,000,000, encrypted emails to departments, enforcement of her provisions, bans on security breaches, and solitary confinement for an individual she blamed for her "wrongful death."
The amended complaint also sought assistance from religious denominations allegedly involved (e.g., Mennonites, Jehovah's Witnesses) to stop purported illegal activities.
The Court granted in forma pauperis status under 28 U.S.C. §1915 but reviewed the complaint for frivolousness under §1915(e)(2)(B).
The Court found the allegations "fanciful," "fantastic," and "delusional," concluding they were objectively frivolous and devoid of any plausible legal or factual basis.
The complaint was dismissed as frivolous, the Court denied in forma pauperis status on appeal as the appeal would not be taken in good faith, and the Clerk was directed to enter judgment for the defendant.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the pro se complaint states a plausible claim	Heriveaux sought relief to shut down a portal, stop security breaches, monetary and punitive relief, and assistance from religious groups	Defendant contested via the Court's screening authority that the complaint lacks factual or legal basis	Dismissed as frivolous for failing to plead plausible facts
Whether the complaint is frivolous under §1915(e)(2)(B)	Allegations describe ongoing threats, mental cruelty, inducement and other violations warranting relief	Court evaluated allegations and found them irrational and incredible	Complaint deemed factually frivolous and dismissed
Whether amendment could cure defects	Plaintiff submitted an amended complaint	No plausible factual foundation evident to support viable claim	Court held defects could not be cured by further amendment and dismissed with prejudice to amendment
Whether in forma pauperis status should extend to any appeal	Plaintiff had IFP status for filing	Court must certificate whether appeal would be taken in good faith	Court certified appeal not in good faith and denied IFP for appeal

Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007) (pro se complaints are to be read liberally)
Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant #1, 537 F.3d 185 (2d Cir. 2008) (liberal reading of pro se pleadings)
Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 621 F.3d 111 (2d Cir. 2010) (court assumes truth of well-pleaded nonconclusory allegations at pleading stage)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plaintiff must plead sufficient factual matter to state a plausible claim)
Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471 (2d Cir. 2006) (pro se plaintiffs still must meet plausibility standard)
Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25 (1992) (complaints may be dismissed as frivolous when allegations are irrational or wholly incredible)
Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99 (2d Cir. 2000) (futility of further amendment justifies dismissal)
Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438 (1962) (standard for certifying appeal not taken in good faith)