Case Information
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
ADAM STREGE,
Plaintiff, 25-CV-2548 (LLS) -against- ORDER OF DISMISSAL LAUNCHING NUCLEAR MISSILES KILL ALL PLANETS PEOPLE,
Defendants. LOUIS L. STANTON, United States District Judge:
Plaintiff, who resides in New Mexico, is appearing pro se . By order dated March 28, 2025, the court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis , that is, without prepayment of fees. The Court dismisses the complaint for the reasons set forth below.
STANDARD OF REVIEW The Court must dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint, or any portion of the complaint, 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). The Court must also dismiss a complaint when the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction of the claims raised. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).
A claim is frivolous when it “lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams , 490 U.S. 319, 324-25 (1989), abrogated on other grounds by Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544 (2007); see also Denton v. Hernandez , 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992) (holding that “finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible”); Livingston , 141 F.3d at 437 (“[A]n action is ‘frivolous’ when either: (1) the factual contentions are clearly baseless . . . ; or (2) the claim is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).
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) (emphasis in original). But the “special solicitude” in pro se cases, id . at 475 (citation omitted), has its limits – to state a claim, pro se pleadings still must comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires a complaint to make a short and plain statement showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff’s complaint includes the following allegations:
Plaintiff Adam Strege alleges its Legal God and all Space Planets to launch Nuclear Missiles to kill all Earth People because all Earth Judges list zero reasons why not do it when all Earth People will not do 1 thing to prevent it makes it legal God Loves all Space Planets to launch Nuclear Missiles kill all Earth People harm nature and do nothing to Help nature the Earth Government should outlaw Childbirth and all Earth People had the Choice to not have babies to save nature all Earth Animals would like God to kill all Earth People the trees are tired of people eating there fruit and using wood.
(ECF 1 at 2.) [1]
Plaintiff invokes numerous federal statutes as the basis for his claims:
Plaintiff Adam Strege alleges Federal Court Jurisdiction 28 U.S. Code § 1345,§ 1343, § 1348, § 1357, § 1369 Federal Jurisdiction Claims Plaintiff Adam Strege alleges defendants PANYNJ Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, PANYNJ Rick, Social Security, Constellation Energy, Social Security Commissioner Michelle King, Nominee Social Security Commissioner Frank Bisignano, Social Security Melvin Tolbert, United States Navey Chief of naval operations James Wells, United States Army, General Randy George, Western Area Power Administration, Tracey A LeBeau, Federal Prisons, Federal Prisons Director William Lothrop FBI Federal Bureau Investigations, FBI Director Kash Patel, NASA, SpaceX, DODGE Amy Gleason and Elon Musk are acting in Clear absence all jurisdiction violating §18 U.S. Code §1091 Genocide Laws ICC, 42 USCS § 1983 § 1985 § 1986, Act Furtherance Conspiracy Laws , Alien Tort Claims Act 28 U.S.C. § 1350 war crimes, crimes against humanity and aggression CAHWCA, Common torts assault, batte1y, damage to personal property, conversion of personal property, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, Federal Business Torts Laws, Federal Fraud Tort Laws and Federal economic tort Laws, 18 U.S. Code§ 1951, Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1-38, Whistleblower Protection Act, RICO Act§ 1962(d) 42 USC 1346(b ), Federal Tort Claims Act FTCA, 28 U.S. Code 2671 to 2680, 28 USCS 133 l(a) - 1334, 18 U.S. Code § 1341, 18 U.S. Code § 1343, Constitution First, Fourth, Fifth Sixth, Eighth, Fourteenth Amendment, Bivens Action See Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) and First Amendment retaliation Claim Title VII Civil Rights Act 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 Americans with Disabilities Act conspiring to conceal Harmfully Drug all Prisoners Food before go to Court Harmfully Drug food Federal Court Judges All Government Buildings Harmfully drug food workers, Kidnaping Kids in School Tunnels, Building bottom and top Elevators kidnaping people clear absence of all jurisdiction Courthouse Building Tunnels to Hamburger restaurants put Human Hearts in Nuclear Reactors Founder Holocaust Gas Chambers forced labor founded Uranium Mines. Putting semen and Human hearts 2 Nuclear Reactors under 911 World Trade Center Collapse 2001 close all Germany Nuclear Reactors.
( Id. at 5-6.)
It is unclear who Plaintiff is suing or what relief he seeks. Plaintiff has filed numerous actions in federal courts around the country, including recent cases with complaints very similar to this one. , e.g. , Strege v. All Planets Nuclear Missles , No. 24-CV-01047 (SDD) (EWD) (M.D. La. Mar. 24, 2025) (“Strege has filed several lawsuits in federal district courts around the country, including New Mexico, the District of Columbia, Michigan, Puerto Rico, South Dakota, Texas, Georgia, Minnesota, California, Colorado, and Hawaii. Other decisions describe Strege’s claims as “rambling, garbled, and extremely difficult to decipher,” “largely unintelligible, “and “difficult to follow or understand.”); Strege v. Stars All. Nuclear Reactors , No. No. 24-CV-00654 (PHX) (SMB) (D. Az. Mar. 28, 2024) (“[T]he Complaint is frivolous and does not state a claim on which relief may be granted.”); Strege v. Equifax Inc. , No. 1:23-CV-4850 (SEG) (CCB), 2023 WL 11051809, at *3 (N.D. Ga. Nov. 8, 2023) (“Plaintiff’s complaint amounts to a spattering of legal terms and statutes interspersed with pure gibberish about nuclear missiles, human body parts in hamburgers, and his own sexual exploits. Nowhere does a viable claim appear.”). [2]
DISCUSSION Even when read with the “special solicitude” due pro se pleadings, Triestman , 470 F.3d at 475, Plaintiff’s claims rise to the level of the irrational, and there is no legal theory on which he can rely, see Denton , 504 U.S. at 33; Livingston , 141 F.3d at 437.
Although Plaintiff invokes numerous federal statutes, he makes no attempt to allege facts suggesting that a particular individual or entity named as a defendant took, or failed to take, any action in violation of his rights. Accordingly, as there is no factual predicate or legal theory on which Plaintiff may rely to state a claim, a finding of frivolousness is warranted, see Livingston , 141 F.3d at 437. The Court therefore dismisses this action as frivolous, see 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
District courts generally grant a pro se plaintiff an opportunity to amend a complaint to cure its defects, but leave to amend is not required where it would be futile. See Hill v. Curcione , 657 F.3d 116, 123-24 (2d Cir. 2011); Salahuddin v. Cuomo , 861 F.2d 40, 42 (2d Cir. 1988). Because the defects in Plaintiff’s complaint cannot be cured with an amendment, the Court declines to grant Plaintiff leave to amend and dismisses the action as frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
The Court warns Plaintiff that further vexatious or frivolous litigation in this court may result in an order barring Plaintiff from filing new actions in forma pauperis unless he receives prior permission from the court to file a new action. 28 U.S.C. § 1651.
CONCLUSION Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), as frivolous. The Court directs the Clerk of Court to enter judgment dismissing this action.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 11, 2025
New York, New York
Louis L. Stanton U.S.D.J.
[1] The Court quotes from the complaint verbatim. All spelling, grammar, and punctuation are as in the original unless noted otherwise.
[2] See also In the Matter of the Applications of Adam Strege For Review of Actions Taken By FINRA , SEC Docket (CCH) 4592970 (“The Director reasonably determined that Strege posed a safety risk due to his first statement of claim’s many references to mass-casualty events and murder. Given these references to violence in the first statement of claim, it was reasonable for the Director to also take into account Strege’s arrest for allegedly making bomb threats to the Social Security Administration when determining whether Strege poses a real safety risk.”).