Preston v. Foster and Garbus LLP et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------------------------x
EBONY PRESTON,
Plaintiff,
- against -
FOSTER AND GARBUS LLP, et al.,
Defendants.
-------------------------------------------------------x
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
26-CV-2173 (PKC) (JAM)
PAMELA K. CHEN, United States District Judge:
On April 14, 2026, Plaintiff Ebony Preston (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed this action
(Compl., Dkt. 1), along with an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), (Dkt. 2). For
the reasons explained herein, Plaintiff’s request to proceed IFP is granted, but the Court dismisses
the Complaint.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff brings this action against Foster and Garbus LLP, the Brooklyn Public Library,
J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., and the Department of Treasury, 	alleging “[b]reach of
confidentiality at IRS New York Brooklyn Office, escalated Human Trafficking, [which] caused,
physical Harm, exploitation of self and Family Members, Interstate crimes.” (Compl., Dkt. 1, at
1–5.) 	Plaintiff requests no specific relief. 	(See id. at 6 (“Already written and decided.”).)
Plaintiff’s Complaint contains no other allegations.
LEGAL STANDARD
A district court shall dismiss an IFP action where it is satisfied that the action “(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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
If a liberal reading of the complaint “gives any indication that a valid claim might be stated,” the
Case 1:26-cv-02173-PKC-JAM Document 4 Filed 10/13/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
Court must grant leave to amend the complaint. See Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99, 112 (2d
Cir. 2000). However, claims are frivolous when they lack “an arguable basis either in law or in
fact.” 	Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). 	“[A] finding of factual frivolousness is
appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible,
whether or not there are judicially noticeable facts available to contradict them.” 	Denton v.
Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992).
DISCUSSION
The factual allegations in Plaintiff’s Complaint can only be described as frivolous and
“clearly baseless.” 	Id. at 32 (citation omitted). 	Even giving the most liberal construction to
Plaintiff’s Complaint, see Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007), the Court cannot find that
a cause of action has been alleged. Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s Complaint lacks
any arguable basis in law or fact. See Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325; see also Lewis v. U.S., Dep’t of
Health Servs., No. 24-CV-2503 (PKC) (TAM), 2024 WL 1577930, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 11, 2024)
(dismissing pro se complaint as frivolous finding that the allegations were nonsensical and failed
to present a cognizable claim); Albarran v. Apple, No. 22-CV-7382 (LDH) (SJB), 2023 WL
8622841, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 13, 2023) (dismissing pro se complaint as frivolous where the
Court could not discern what cognizable harm the plaintiff suffered). Moreover, the Court takes
notice of the filing injunction entered against Plaintiff in Preston v. Government Legal
Department, No. 26-CV-4332 (DG) (JAM) (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 5, 2026), Dkt. 6, which documents the
eleven frivolous complaints filed by Plaintiff in this District, and supports finding this case
frivolous as well.
LEAVE TO AMEND DENIED
Generally, a court should not dismiss a pro se complaint “without . . . granting leave to
amend at least once when a liberal reading of the complaint gives any indication that a valid claim
Case 1:26-cv-02173-PKC-JAM Document 4 Filed 10/13/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
might be stated.” 	Dolan v. Connolly, 794 F.3d 290, 295 (2d Cir. 2015) (quoting Chavis v.
Chappius, 618 F.3d 162, 170 (2d Cir. 2010)). 	“[B]ut amendment should be denied where the
complaint gives no indication that a valid claim might be stated.” McKie v. Kornegay, No. 21-
1943, 2022 WL 4241355, at *3 (2d Cir. Sep. 15, 2022) (summary order). The Court concludes
that granting leave to amend would be futile. The Complaint does not suggest any basis for a valid
claim.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants Plaintiff’s IFP Motion and dismisses Plaintiff’s
Complaint as frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 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
IFP status for the purpose of an appeal. 	See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444–45
(1962). The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment and mail a copy of this Order and the
judgment to Plaintiff.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Pamela K. Chen
Pamela K. Chen
United States District Judge
Dated: October 13, 2026
Brooklyn, New York
Case 1:26-cv-02173-PKC-JAM Document 4 Filed 10/13/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>