Cavienss v. Alibaba Group All Major Vaping Co. et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-----------------------------------------------------------x
STANLEY CAVIENSS,
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff, 	25-CV-04636 (OEM) (MMH)
-against-
ALIBABA GROUP ALL MAJOR VAPING CO.;
ATF; FDA; ALVIN BRAGG,
Defendants.
------------------------------------------------------------x
ORELIA E. MERCHANT, United States District Judge:
On August 18, 2025, pro se plaintiff Stanley Aron Cavienss (“Plaintiff”) filed his complaint
in this action and moved to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). 	Complaint for a Civil Cause
(“Complaint” or “Compl.”), Dkt. 1; Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying
Fees or Costs, Dkt. 3. 	For the below reasons, the Court dismisses the Complaint but grants
Plaintiff’s request to proceed IFP solely for the limited purpose of dismissing his Complaint.
BACKGROUND
In his Complaint, Plaintiff broadly sues foreign and domestic actors “Alibaba Group, All
Major Vaping Co., FDA, ATF, and Alvin Bragg,” for damages inflicted on the public by vaping.
Compl. at 2-5. 	Specifically, he claims that unregulated vaping products, digital microchip
tracking, and environmental issues raise national security concerns and public health risks. Id. at
9-10. Plaintiff seeks an unspecified amount of monetary damages and injunctive relief. Id. at 27-
34.
LEGAL STANDARD
A complaint must plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff
Case 1:25-cv-04636-OEM-MMH Document 6 Filed 11/12/25 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is
liable for the misconduct alleged.” Matson v. Bd. of Educ., 631 F.3d 57, 63 (2d Cir. 2011) (quoting
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)). Although all allegations contained in the complaint
are assumed to be true, this tenet is “inapplicable to legal conclusions.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. In
reviewing a pro se complaint, the plaintiff’s pleadings should be held “to less stringent standards
than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” 	Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per
curiam) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)); see also Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d
66, 72 (2d Cir. 2009) (noting that even after Twombly, courts “remain obligated to construe a pro
se complaint liberally”). 	Nonetheless, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), a district court shall
dismiss an in forma pauperis 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.”
DISCUSSION
The factual allegations in Plaintiff’s Complaint lack any basis and do not withstand legal
scrutiny. “An action is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact—i.e., where it is ‘based
on an indisputably meritless legal theory’ or presents ‘factual contentions [which] are clearly
baseless.’” Scanlon v. Vermont, 423 Fed. Appx. 78, 79 (2d Cir. 2011) (summary order) (alteration
in original) (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989)); see also Denton v. Hernandez,
504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992) (“[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.”).
Even giving the most liberal construction to Plaintiff’s Complaint, the Court cannot find
that it has alleged a cause of action. Accordingly, the Court finds that the Plaintiff’s Complaint
lacks any arguable basis in law or fact. See Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325; see also Taylor v. Securus
Case 1:25-cv-04636-OEM-MMH Document 6 Filed 11/12/25 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
Techs., Inc., 25-CV-1416, 2025 WL 1181713, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 23, 2025) (dismissing the
complaint as frivolous given the implausibility of the plaintiff’s allegations); Williams v. Combs,
25-CV-3521, 2025 WL 1920368, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. July 11, 2025) (same); Lewis v. United States,
24-CV-2503, 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).
The Court additionally declines to grant Plaintiff the opportunity to amend. 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 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)). But a court has inherent power to dismiss without leave to amend or replead
“where . . . the substance of the claim pleaded is frivolous on its face,” Salahuddin v. Cuomo, 861
F.2d 40, 42 (2d Cir. 1988) (citation omitted), or where amendment would otherwise be futile, Hill
v. Curcione, 657 F. 3d 116, 123-24 (2d Cir. 2011). Given the baselessness of Plaintiff’s claims,
the Court concludes that granting Plaintiff leave to amend would be futile.
WARNING
“The district courts have the power and the obligation to protect the public and the efficient
administration of justice from individuals who have a ‘history of litigation entailing “vexation,
harassment and needless expense to [other parties]” and “an unnecessary burden on the courts and
their supporting personnel.”’” Lau v. Meddaugh, 229 F.3d 121, 123 (2d Cir. 2000) (alteration in
original) (quoting In re Martin-Trigona, 737 F.2d 1254, 1262 (2d Cir. 1984)).
Plaintiff has recently filed a lawsuit in this Court against the sitting Justices of the United
States Supreme Court, see Cavienss v. Alito, et al., No. 25-cv-04403, and a review of the Public
Access to Court Electronic Records shows that Plaintiff has filed numerous other civil actions in
Case 1:25-cv-04636-OEM-MMH Document 6 Filed 11/12/25 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
different federal courts. 	Plaintiff is warned that the future filing of repetitive, vexatious, and
frivolous litigation may result in the imposition of an injunction prohibiting him from making
future filings seeking IFP status without leave of the Court. See Hong Mai Sa v. Doe, 406 F.3d
155, 158 (2d Cir. 2005) (“If a litigant has a history of filing vexatious, harassing or duplicative
lawsuits, courts may impose sanctions, including restrictions on future access to the judicial
system.” (internal quotations and citations omitted)).
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff’s claims are dismissed as frivolous and for failure to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(ii).
As it would be futile to permit plaintiff to file an amended complaint, leave to amend the
Complaint is denied. 	Plaintiff is warned that the Court will not tolerate the filing of baseless
litigation.
The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to enter judgment dismissing the action, mail a
copy of the judgment and this Memorandum and Order to pro se Plaintiff, note the mailing on the
docket, and close this case.
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, in forma pauperis status is denied for purpose of
an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444–45 (1962).
SO ORDERED.
/s/
ORELIA E. MERCHANT
United States District Judge
November 12, 2025
Brooklyn, New York
Case 1:25-cv-04636-OEM-MMH Document 6 Filed 11/12/25 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>