After the plaintiff filed over 50 frivolous suits against multiple financial firms, banks and government agencies, the court dismissed the complaint for being “disjointed and incomprehensible.”
05/14/2024 9:00 A.M.
2 minute read
In a recent decision and recommendation (PDF) in a Texas district court, a complaint filed by the plaintiff, Adam Strege, against multiple financial firms, banks and government agencies was dismissed with prejudice as frivolous.
Strege, representing himself, presented a “disjointed and incomprehensible” complaint and filed over 50 different cases, prompting the court to dismiss his claims.
Background
On March 12, 2024, Strege, who is from Las Cruces, New Mexico, initiated the civil action by filing a pro se complaint against several financial firms, banks, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), its CEO, and the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration.
The plaintiff’s complaint was subject to screening under 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(2)(B), which allows for the dismissal of complaints deemed frivolous or malicious. The court clarified that a complaint is considered frivolous when it rests on a meritless legal theory or contains clearly baseless factual contentions.
Despite the obligation to liberally construe pleadings filed by pro se litigants, the court found the plaintiff’s complaint failed to present any viable legal claims and contained contentions that were both irrational and incredible.
Sanction Warning
The court noted that the plaintiff has an extensive history of filing frivolous cases across various federal courts. With over 50 cases filed, many of which were dismissed as legally or factually frivolous, the plaintiff had previously been warned by the Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit about potential filing restrictions. The court noted that sanctions might be imposed, and the plaintiff could be barred from bringing further action if he persisted in filing baseless claims.
While pro se litigants are afforded certain leniencies, the court emphasized that they are not exempt from consequences for abusing the judicial process. The court further noted that frivolous litigation not only burdens the judicial system but also undermines the rights of other litigants.
Decision
For these reasons, the plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed with prejudice, and he was cautioned about potential monetary sanctions and future filing restrictions if he continued to submit frivolous claims.
ACA’s Take
While individuals have the right to seek redress in court, that right must be exercised responsibly and in accordance with established legal principles. If a court isn’t issuing a warning for sanctions upon receiving a frivolous, incoherent and nonsensical complaint, ACA’s compliance team urges its members to ask for it so the warning can be issued, and further action can be taken in the future if needed.
Read the recommendation (PDF) here.
Remember, subscribe to ACA Daily and Member Alerts under your My ACA profile when logged in to acainternational.org.