Strege v. Launching Nuclear Missiles kill all Planets People
1:25-cv-02548
S.D.N.Y.Jun 11, 2025Background
- Plaintiff, Adam Strege, filed a pro se complaint in the Southern District of New York, seeking to proceed in forma pauperis.
- The complaint is largely incoherent, referencing fantastical allegations involving launching nuclear missiles, conspiracy by various government agencies and officials, and global genocide claims.
- Strege listed numerous federal statutes and constitutional provisions but did not provide facts connecting any alleged actions by specific defendants to violations of his rights.
- The complaint does not clearly identify the defendants or state a cognizable legal claim or specific relief sought.
- The court noted that Strege has filed similar, unintelligible lawsuits in other federal courts across the country, all of which have been dismissed as frivolous.
- This matter was reviewed under the standards for frivolous or malicious complaints required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Frivolousness of Complaint | Strege alleges broad conspiracies and global harm under numerous federal statutes. | Not specified; complaint unclear and unintelligible. | Dismissed as frivolous for lacking factual/ legal basis. |
| Sufficiency of Factual Allegations | Strege invokes statutes without connecting specific facts to defendants' actions. | Not specified. | Dismissed for failure to state a claim; no factual predicate. |
| Subject Matter Jurisdiction | Asserts federal court jurisdiction via numerous statutes. | Not specified. | Lacked basis for subject matter jurisdiction; claims dismissed. |
| Leave to Amend | No express request; standing pro se. | Not specified. | Leave to amend denied as futile; defects irreparable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989) (defining "frivolous" under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and standards for dismissal)
- Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25 (1992) (finding of factual frivolousness appropriate for irrational or wholly incredible allegations)
- Livingston v. Adirondack Beverage Co., 141 F.3d 434 (2d Cir. 1998) (articulating when an action is frivolous under § 1915)
- Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66 (2d Cir. 2009) (pro se pleadings must be liberally construed)
- Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471 (2d Cir. 2006) (courts interpret pro se filings to raise strongest possible claims)
- Hill v. Curcione, 657 F.3d 116 (2d Cir. 2011) (leave to amend not required where it would be futile)
- Salahuddin v. Cuomo, 861 F.2d 40 (2d Cir. 1988) (leave to amend may be denied if amendment is futile)