Cho v. Joseph R. Biden et al
| Migguo Cho |
| Joseph R. Biden, The United States of America and U.S. Food and Drug Administration |
| 1:2023cv05845 |
| August 2, 2023 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
| Lois Bloom |
| Rachel P Kovner |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on August 9, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 5 CLERK'S JUDGMENT that this case is dismissed as frivolous; that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915 (a)(3), any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith; and that in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of any appeal. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 44445 (1962). Signed by Deputy Clerk Jalitza Poveda on behalf of Clerk of Court Brenna B. Mahoney, on 8/9/2023. (Copy of judgment and appeals packet mailed to Pro Se). (IH) |
ORDER DISMISSING CASE AS FRIVOLOUS: Plaintiff Mingguo Cho filed a complaint against President Biden, the United States of America, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 28 U.S.C. 1332, alleging that Defendants unconstitutionally conspired to suppress his discovery of a life energy system that can be used to treat all diseases, Compl. 4 (Dkt. #1), and the cure for Covid-19: garlic soup, id. at 26. Plaintiff seeks damages and injunctive relief, including (a) an order directing that his remedies be included in the FDAs Compassionate Use Program; (b) a mandatory injunction directing that all persons in the world be compelled to ingest garlic soup; (c) a restructuring of the United States Health care system to enjoin officials from prohibiting non-medical personnel from offering their cures; and (d) a mandatory injunction compelling doctors and other medical professionals to be educated fully in the time proven remedies of traditional Chinese medicines and the life energy system. Id. at pp. 13-14. Plaintiff filed a substantially similar complaint in June 2020, which this Court dismissed as frivolous. See Mingguo Cho v. Trump, No. 20-CV-2846 (RPK) (LB), 2020 WL 4676356, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 11, 2020). The instant complaint fares no better. A pro se complaint must be liberally construed and, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam) (internal quotations and citations omitted). Nevertheless, a district court possesse[s] the power to dismiss a fee-paid case sua sponte if it determines that the plaintiffs claims are frivolous. Fitzgerald v. First East Seventh Street Tenants Corp., 221 F.3d 362, 363-64 (2d Cir. 2000). Claims are frivolous when they lack an arguable basis either in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). This standard authorizes dismissal when a plaintiffs factual allegations are fanciful, fantastic, or delusional. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992) (quoting Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325, 328).The standard for dismissal is satisfied here. Plaintiff alleges that he has discovered a life energy system that has allowed him to cure diseases such as lupus and Alzheimers. Compl. 4-5. He has attempted to disseminate this information through authoring a book, id. at 6, creating a website, id. at 7, and offering his cures directly to medical institutions, id. at 9. Plaintiff further alleges that he has discovered that garlic soup is a wonder drug that is 100% effective against COVID-19. Id. at 26-27. He asserts that President Biden and federal agencies are part of a vast conspiracy to suppress these findings and to slander health providers who do not have medical degrees. Id. at 6-7, 11, 20, 24. This claim of a massive government conspiracy to suppress miraculous medical discoveries is appropriately labeled fanciful, fantastic, and delusional. See Mingguo Cho, 2020 WL 4676356, at *1; Fitzgerald, 221 F.3d at 363-64; Denton, 504 U.S. at 33. While the Court has considered affording plaintiff a chance to amend the complaint, it concludes that any such attempt would be futile because the problem with plaintiffs complaint is a substantive one that cannot be cured with better pleading. Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99, 112 (2d Cir. 2000); see Ashmore v. Prus, 510 F. Appx 47, 49 (2d Cir. 2013) (leave to amend is futile where barriers to relief cannot be surmounted by reframing the complaint). Accordingly, this case is dismissed as frivolous. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment closing the action and mail a copy of this Order and the Judgment to Plaintiff and note the mailing on the docket. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915 (a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and therefore denies in forma pauperis status for the purpose of any appeal. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 44445 (1962). Ordered by Judge Rachel P. Kovner on 8/8/2023. (XW)
|
| Filing 4 In accordance with Rule 73 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 73.1, the parties are notified that if all parties consent a United States magistrate judge of this court is available to conduct all proceedings in this civil action including a (jury or nonjury) trial and to order the entry of a final judgment. Attached to the Notice is a blank copy of the consent form that should be filled out, signed and filed electronically only if all parties wish to consent. The form may also be accessed at the following link: #http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/FormsAndFees/Forms/AO085.pdf. You may withhold your consent without adverse substantive consequences. Do NOT return or file the consent unless all parties have signed the consent. (SR) |
| Filing 3 Summons Issued as to All Defendants. (SR) |
| Filing 2 FILING FEE: $ 402.00, receipt number 100008611 (SR) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants, filed by Migguo Cho. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet) (SR) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the New York Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
