Sue F's Suit Against State of NY Found to be Frivolous

(Public Document - no permission required)

http://vertumnus.courts.state.ny.us/claims/html/2005-028-569.html

"... review of Claimant's moving papers makes it very clear that the mistake to which Claimant refers is the Court's alleged mistake in denying her application for waiver of a filing fee. Consequently, it appears that she has, in fact, brought a motion to reargue and/or renew "

"...Claimant makes several, apparently novel arguments in support of her contention that the Court erred in denying her application for a waiver of the filing fee."

"...implying that what is good for one court should be good enough for another. She also argues that because the Court of Claims has no "published universal income standard" to establish who is entitled to poor person relief, it may not deny such status to anyone..."

"The majority of Claimant's assets cannot rightfully be considered by the Court, she contends, because they consist of "[d]isability and work relief income" (id. ¶4) or are the assets of a disabled, incapacitated person..."

"Finally, Claimant argues that denial of poor person status in connection with this action would be unduly burdensome because she intends to file "other spawned and related" cases in other courts and against other parties and, if denied permission to proceed as a poor person, she would not be able to pay filing fees in all of those courts..."

"Claimant seeks is described as follows: "a restraining order to stop the state of New York from operating a veterans claims law office without licensed lawyers; and is also seeking a court order requiring the Division of Veterans Affairs to provide the Claimant with a licensed attorney for her disability case at the VA without delay; or in the alternative, is seeking the full value of the VA disability claim which is approximately $500,000 in compensation for her property loss"

"The claim, therefore, is without merit..."

"This contrasts with Federal practice, where courts are not only required to review the merit of any action in which the litigant seeks to obtain poor person relief (referred to as in forma pauperis in Federal practice), but they are also required to dismiss such an action if it is determined to be frivolous or if it fails to state a cause of action. Section 1915 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (28 USCA § 1915), which governs proceedings in forma pauperis, provides, in relevant part, as follows:

(e)(2) Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that--

(A) the allegation of poverty is untrue; or

(B) the action or appeal--

   (i) is frivolous or malicious;

   (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or

   (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief."

"This, of course, results in a judicial "weeding out" of non-meritorious claims early in the proceeding and is a screening mechanism that does not occur in other actions where no poor person relief is requested..."

[3] Claimant purports to bring this claim "as part of the Fort McClellan veterans class," a group of over 7 million veterans who may have been disabled by such exposure.