Levesque v. The People of the United States

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
_____________________________________
ANDRE RENE LEVESQUE,
Plaintiff,
v.
No. 8:25-CV-1259
THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES, 	(MAD/PJE)
Defendants.
_____________________________________
APPEARANCES:
Andre Rene Levesque
35A Smithfield Blvd.
#149
Plattsburgh, New York 12901
Plaintiff pro se
PAUL J. EVANGELISTA
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
REPORT-RECOMMENDATION AND ORDER1
I. In Forma Pauperis
Plaintiff pro se Andre Rene Levesque (“plaintiff”) commenced this action on
September 8, 2025, by filing a complaint.2 See Dkt. No. 1. In lieu of paying this Court’s
filing fee, plaintiff submitted an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”).
See Dkt. No. 2. Plaintiff also filed a motion seeking to have the U.S. Marshals copy and
serve defendants with “evidence” and the Court provide a computer so defendants can
review the “evidence.” 	Dkt. No. 3. 	The undersigned has reviewed plaintiff’s IFP
1 This matter was referred to the undersigned for Report-Recommendation and Order pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b) and N.D.N.Y. L.R. 72.3(c).
2 The undersigned notes that plaintiff has filed at least nineteen other civil actions in this District.
Case 8:25-cv-01259-MAD-PJE Document 5 Filed 06/08/26 Page 1 of 11

2
application and determines that he financially qualifies to proceed IFP.3 This Court must
now assess the merits of plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915; 1915A.4
II. Initial Review
A. Legal Standards
28 U.S.C. § 1915 directs that, when a plaintiff seeks to proceed IFP, “the court shall
dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . 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.” 	28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B). “Thus, it is a court’s responsibility to determine that a plaintiff may properly
maintain his complaint before permitting him to proceed further with his action.” Praileau
v. Fischer, 930 F. Supp. 2d 383, 394 (N.D.N.Y. 2013).
The Second Circuit affords pro se litigants a “special solicitude” such “that a pro se
litigant’s submissions must be construed liberally, and that such submissions must be
read to raise the strongest arguments that they suggest.” 	Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of
Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 477 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks, citations, and footnote
omitted); Kirkland v. Cablevision Sys., 760 F.3d 223, 224 (2d Cir. 2014) (same). 	“In
reviewing a complaint . . . the court must accept the material facts alleged in the complaint
as true and construe all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor.” 	Hernandez v.
Coughlin, 18 F.3d 133, 136 (2d Cir. 1994) (citation omitted).
3 Plaintiff is advised that although he has been granted IFP status, he is still required to pay any fees and
costs they may incur in this action, including, but not limited to, copying fees, transcript fees, and witness
fees.
4 These requirements apply equally to non-prisoner pro se litigants. See N.D.N.Y. L.R. 72.3(d) (“Unless
the Court orders otherwise, any civil action that a non-prisoner pro se litigant commences shall be referred
to a Magistrate Judge for the purpose of review under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2) and 28 U.S.C. §1915A when
an application to proceed in forma pauperis is filed.”).
Case 8:25-cv-01259-MAD-PJE Document 5 Filed 06/08/26 Page 2 of 11

3
Conversely, the Second Circuit has stated that the Court “cannot read into pro se
submissions claims that are not consistent with the pro se litigant’s allegations, or
arguments that the submissions themselves do not suggest, [and] that we should not
excuse frivolous or vexatious filings by pro se litigants.” 	Triestman, 470 F.3d at 477
(citations omitted). Stated another way, the Court is not required to accept unsupported
allegations that are devoid of sufficient facts or claims. Although detailed allegations are
not required at the pleading stage, a complaint must still include enough facts to provide
the defendants with notice of the claims against them and the grounds upon which the
claims are based. 	See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (“A claim has facial
plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”); Bell
Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007) (Noting that a plaintiff bringing suit must
plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”).
Further, “pro se status does not exempt a party from compliance with relevant rules
of procedural and substantive law . . . .” Triestman, 470 F.3d at 477 (additional quotation
omitted); Kastner v. Tri State Eye, No. 19-CV-10668 (CM), 2019 WL 6841952, at *2
(S.D.N.Y. Dec. 13, 2019) (quoting Ruotolo v. IRS, 28 F.3d 6, 8 (2d Cir. 1994)) (“The
[Second Circuit]’s ‘special solicitude’ for pro se pleadings has its limits, because pro se
pleadings still must comply with . . . the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”5).6 	Rule 8
provides that a pleading which sets forth a claim for relief shall contain, among other
things, “a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction . . . and . . .
5 Hereafter, “Fed. R. Civ. P.”
6 All unpublished decisions cited in this Report-Recommendation and Order, unless otherwise noted, have
been provided to plaintiff.
Case 8:25-cv-01259-MAD-PJE Document 5 Filed 06/08/26 Page 3 of 11

4
a demand for the relief sought . . . .” FED. R. CIV . P. 8(a). “The purpose . . . is to give fair
notice of the claim being asserted so as to permit the adverse party the opportunity to file
a responsive answer, prepare an adequate defense and determine whether the doctrine
of res judicata is applicable.” 	Flores v. Graphtex, 189 F.R.D. 54, 55 (N.D.N.Y. 1999)
(internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 	Although “[n]o technical form is
required,” the Federal Rules make clear that each allegation contained in the pleading
“must be simple, concise, and direct.” FED. R. CIV . P. 8(d). Rule 8 “demands more than
an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678
(citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). Thus, a pleading that only “tenders naked assertions
devoid of further factual enhancement” does not suffice.” 	Id. (internal quotation marks
and alterations omitted).
Rule 10 provides in pertinent part that:
[a] party must state its claims or defenses in numbered
paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable to a single set
of circumstances. A later pleading may refer by number to a
paragraph in an earlier pleading. 	If doing so would promote
clarity, each claim founded on a separate transaction or
occurrence—and each defense other than a denial—must be
stated in a separate count or defense.
FED. R. CIV . P. 10(b). 	This serves the purpose of “provid[ing] an easy mode of
identification for referring to a particular paragraph in a prior pleading[.]” 	Flores, 189
F.R.D. at 55 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
Allegations that “are so vague as to fail to give the defendants adequate notice of
the claims against them” are subject to dismissal. 	Sheehy v. Brown, 335 F. App’x 102,
104 (2d Cir. 2009) (summary order). A complaint that fails to comply with the pleading
requirements “presents far too a heavy burden in terms of defendants’ duty to shape a
Case 8:25-cv-01259-MAD-PJE Document 5 Filed 06/08/26 Page 4 of 11

5
comprehensive defense and provides no meaningful basis for the Court to assess the
sufficiency of their claims.” Gonzales v. Wing, 167 F.R.D. 352, 355 (N.D.N.Y. 1996). As
the Second Circuit has held, “[w]hen a complaint does not comply with the requirement
that it be short and plain, the court has the power, on its own initiative . . . to dismiss the
complaint.” 	Salahuddin v. Cuomo, 861 F.2d 40, 42 (2d Cir. 1988) (citations omitted).
However, “[d]ismissal . . . is usually reserved for those cases in which the complaint is so
confused, ambiguous, vague, or otherwise unintelligible that its true substance, if any, is
well disguised.” Id. (citations omitted).
Generally, “[a] pro se complaint should not be dismissed without the Court granting
leave to amend at least once when a liberal reading of the complaint gives any indication
that a valid claim might be stated.” Romano v. Lisson, 711 F. App’x 17, 19 (2d Cir. 2017)
(summary order) (quoting Nielsen v. Rabin, 746 F.3d 58, 62 (2d Cir. 2014)) Rich v.
Akwesasne Mohawk Casino Resort, No. 8:24-CV-0255 (AMN/CFH), 2024 WL 3677262,
at *2 (N.D.N.Y. Aug. 6, 2024), report and recommendation adopted, No. 8:24-CV-0255
(AMN/PJE), 2025 WL 286937 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 24, 2025) (citing Simmons v. Abruzzo, 49
F.3d 83, 86-87 (2d Cir. 1995)) (“If dismissal is warranted and the plaintiff is pro se, the
court generally affords the plaintiff leave to amend the complaint.”). 	“However, if the
problems with a complaint are ‘substantive’ rather than the result of an ‘inadequately or
inartfully pleaded’ complaint, an opportunity to re-plead would be ‘futile’ and ‘should be
denied.’” Edwards v. Penix, 388 F. Supp. 3d 135, 144-45 (N.D.N.Y. 2019) (quoting Cuoco
v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99, 112 (2d Cir. 2000)).
III. Discussion
A. Plaintiff Complaint
Case 8:25-cv-01259-MAD-PJE Document 5 Filed 06/08/26 Page 5 of 11

6
In a two-page, handwritten complaint, plaintiff alleges the following:
After 400 address changes and blatant denial of due process repeatedly
(sic) 	I 	insist 	the 	U.S. 	Marshalls 	personally 	deliver 	my 	fucking 	court
correspondence 	anere443@gmail.com 	The 	good 	people 	intentionally
prevented me from accessing the computer while I was beaten and tortured
repeatedly 	making 	prosecuting 	my 	claims 	impossible 	along 	with 	pre
postaged (sic) envelope return. . . .
The defendants systematically denied me due process and allowed people
to abduct me while trying to ste[al] from me. 	They all got me to chant
[“]Death to America murder mutilate maul maime (sic) destroy them all[”]
200 million x.
Dkt. No. 1 at 1-2. 	Plaintiff asserts that his “pain and suffering is enormous” and has
“caused immense distress [and] irreparable harms.” Id. at 2.
Plaintiff states that he seeks to proceed against the People of the United States
and all of their foreign and domestic trading partners, as well as the United States
Supreme Court, the United States Congress, and all forty-seven Presidents of the United
States. 	See Dkt. No. 1 at 1-2. 	Plaintiff also demands “4 trillion 671 billion 285 million
dollars” in monetary damages. See id. at 2.
Attached to plaintiff’s complaint is a motion seeking to have the U.S. Marshals
“make a copy” and “hand deliver” his complaint to defendants, “enclose a form to have
the judge appoint an attorney,” and “enclose a disk or USB card with each document the
federal court received from me in all 50 states and state filings (sic) as evidence [of] both
what I sent and allegedly received. Along with a 20” x 16” computer to actually review the
evidence.” Dkt. No. 3.
B. Analysis
The undersigned concludes that plaintiff’s complaint is frivolous and fails to satisfy
the liberal pleading requirements for pro se plaintiffs such that plaintiff’s complaint should
Case 8:25-cv-01259-MAD-PJE Document 5 Filed 06/08/26 Page 6 of 11

7
be dismissed without prejudice and without leave to amend. 	See FED. R. CIV . P. 8, 10;
Salahuddin, 861 F.2d at 42; Edwards, 388 F. Supp. 3d at 144-45 (quoting Cuoco, 222
F.3d at 112).
As an initial matter, plaintiff’s complaint fails to meet the pleading requirements of
Rules 8 and 10. Plaintiff’s complaint does not provide a “short and plain statement of the
claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief[.]” FED. R. CIV . P. 8(a). Rather, plaintiff’s
complaint amounts to two pages of indecipherable assertions that provide no factual or
legal context, detail, support, or explanation of any purported claim. See Dkt. No. 1; see
also Story v. Fort Gordon, United States Mil., No. 1:24-CV-0626 (MAD/CFH), 2024 WL
4818523, at *2 (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 18, 2024) (“The Court agrees that Plaintiff’s complaint,
which consists of only one or two sentences, provides no factual context or support for
Plaintiff’s claims.”). The undersigned is unable to make sense of any potential claim and
plaintiff’s complaint fails to give any proposed defendant “fair notice of [any potential]
claim being asserted” such that any individual defendant would have an “opportunity to
file a responsive answer, prepare an adequate defense and determine whether the
doctrine of res judicata is applicable.” Flores, 189 F.R.D. at 55. Further, plaintiff does not
provide a “short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction” or state his
claims in a single set of numbered paragraphs. FED. R. CIV . P. 8(a); see also FED. R. CIV .
P. 10(b).
“Moreover . . . in addition to failing to meet the pleading requirements contemplated
by Rules 8 and 10, the complaint is subject to dismissal because it is frivolous and fails
to state a claim.” 	Story, 2024 WL 4818523, at *2. 	“The Supreme Court has repeatedly
held that the federal courts are without power to entertain claims that are so attenuated
Case 8:25-cv-01259-MAD-PJE Document 5 Filed 06/08/26 Page 7 of 11

8
and unsubstantial as to be absolutely devoid of merit[,]” “wholly insubstantial,” “obviously
frivolous[,]” or “plainly insubstantial[.]” Hines v. United States, No. 6:19-CV-06837 (MAT),
2020 WL 570605, at *2 (W.D.N.Y. Feb. 5, 2020) (quoting Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528,
536-37 (1974)) (internal quotation marks omitted). “No federal question jurisdiction exists
when the complaint is . . . essentially fictitious.” 	Story, 2024 WL 4818523, at *2 (quoting
Hines, 2020 WL 570605, at *2 (quoting Best v. Kelly, 39 F.3d 328, 330 (D.C. Cir. 1994))).
“Claims that are ‘essentially fictitious’ include those that allege ‘bizarre conspiracy
theories” and “any fantastic government manipulations of [the plaintiff’s] will or mind.” Id.
(quoting Hines, 2020 WL 570605, at *2 (quoting Best, 39 F.3d at 330).
Even affording plaintiff great solicitude and reading his complaint liberally, “plaintiff
sets forth no cognizable avenue for relief.” 	Georges v. Rathner, No. 1:17-CV-1246
(DNH/CFH), 	2017 	WL 	8230677, 	at 	*2 	(N.D.N.Y. 	Dec. 	22, 	2017), 	report 	and
recommendation adopted, No. 1:17-CV-1246 (DNH/CFH), 2018 WL 1353058 (N.D.N.Y.
Mar. 15, 2018); see Dkt. No. 1. Although plaintiff’s complaint mentions that he was denied
due process “281 x” and that he was abducted, manipulated, and physically and
financially harmed, plaintiff has not provided any factual or legal basis that can be
interpreted as claiming that he was denied due process or that any of his other
constitutional rights were violated. See Georges, 2018 WL 816846, at *3 (“[The] plaintiff
has not provided sufficient facts for this Court to assess [the] plaintiff’s complaint, as
plaintiff has given no context for her general statements about violations of the law by
parties who are not named in the complaint, nor explanations as to how her constitutional
rights were violated . . . . ”); Ehlers v. C.I.A., No. 6:15-CV-387 (MAD/ATB), 2015 WL
3637431, at *3 (N.D.N.Y. June 10, 2015) (concluding that the “Plaintiff’s complaint does
Case 8:25-cv-01259-MAD-PJE Document 5 Filed 06/08/26 Page 8 of 11

9
not state a valid claim for which relief can be granted and lacks substance . . . Plaintiff’s
complaint is not of substance, but rather conclusory statements and threadbare recitals
of elements of a cause of action.”) (internal quotation marks and additional citation
omitted). Plaintiff does not state how or when he was harmed. See generally Dkt. No. 1.
Rather, plaintiff refers to those who violated his rights in broad, general terms such as
“defendants,” “the good people,” and “their trading partners.” Id. at 1-2. Presented in this
manner, plaintiff seeks to proceed against an infinite and indefinite number of individuals,
institutions, and other nations as proposed unnamed defendants. 	Similarly, plaintiff
describes his physical and financial harm generally as “immense” and “enormous,” yet
he does not state what actual harm, if any, he suffered. See id. at 2.
Plaintiff’s complaint, in which he states, without any support, that the United States,
its foreign trade partners, and the forty-seven presidents of the United States together
denied him due process 281 times, “allowed people to abduct him,” and forced him to
chant “Death to America[.] Murder mutilate maul maime (sic) destroy them all” two million
times, dkt. no.1 at 2, is a “product of delusion or fantasy.” Nance v. Kelly, 912 F.2d 605,
606 (2d Cir. 1990) (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989)); see also Khalil
v. United States, No. 17-CV-2652, 2018 WL 443343, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 12, 2018)
(dismissing 	complaint 	where 	the 	“[p]laintiff 	allege[d] 	a 	broad 	conspiracy 	involving
surveillance of and interference with his life by the United States and various government
actors” because his allegations were “irrational and wholly incredible”). 	“Given the
implausibility 	of 	Plaintiff's 	allegations, 	the 	action 	cannot 	proceed.
Khalil, 2018 WL 443343, at *4 (citing Kraft v. City of New York, 823 F. App'x 62, 64 (2d
Cir. 2020) (summary order)).
Case 8:25-cv-01259-MAD-PJE Document 5 Filed 06/08/26 Page 9 of 11

10
Therefore, the undersigned concludes that plaintiff’s claims are frivolous and fail to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 	See Story, 2024 WL 4818523, at *2;
Hines, 2020 WL 570605, at *2 (“The Court is mindful that complaints filed by pro se
litigants are held to less stringent standards than those applied to formal pleadings drafted
by lawyers . . . . Nonetheless, the Court has the discretion to decide whether a complaint
is frivolous . . . , and such finding is appropriate where the facts alleged are irrational or
wholly incredible”) (additional citations omitted); McKie v. Kornegay, No. 21-1943, 2022
WL 4241355, *3 (2d Cir. Sept. 15, 2022) (“[A]mendment should be denied where the
complaint gives no ‘indication that a valid claim might be stated.’”) (quoting Cuoco v.
Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99, 112 (2d Cir. 2000)). Accordingly, the undersigned recommends
that plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed without prejudice and without opportunity to amend
“because the complaint is so attenuated and unsubstantial as to be absolutely devoid of
merit[,] and, as such, no better pleading would cure these defects.” Id.
IV. Conclusion
WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth herein, it is hereby
ORDERED, that plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. No. 2) is
GRANTED; and it is
RECOMMENDED, that plaintiff’s complaint (Dkt. No. 1), be DISMISSED without
prejudice and without opportunity to amend; and it is further
RECOMMENDED, that plaintiff’s motion seeking to compel the U.S. Marshals to
act (Dkt. No. 3), be DENIED as moot; it is further
ORDERED, that the Clerk serve a copy of this Report-Recommendation and Order
on plaintiff in accordance with Local Rules.
Case 8:25-cv-01259-MAD-PJE Document 5 Filed 06/08/26 Page 10 of 11

11
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), plaintiff has FOURTEEN (14) days within which
to file written objections to the foregoing report. Such objections shall be filed with the
Clerk of the Court. FAILURE TO OBJECT TO THIS REPORT WITHIN FOURTEEN (14)
DAYS WILL PRECLUDE APPELLATE REVIEW. 	See Roldan v. Racette, 984 F.2d 85,
89 (2d Cir. 1993) (citing Small v. Sec’y of Health and Human Servs., 892 F.2d 15 (2d Cir.
1989)); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV . P. 6(a), 72.7
Dated: June 8, 2026
Albany, New York
7 If you are proceeding pro se and are served with this Report-Recommendation and Order by mail, three
(3) additional days will be added to the fourteen-day (14) period, meaning that you have seventeen (17)
days from the date the Report-Recommendation and Order was mailed to you to serve and file objections.
See F ED. R. C IV . P. 6(d). If the last day of that prescribed period falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday,
then the deadline is extended until the end of the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday.
See id. § 6(a)(1)(c).
Case 8:25-cv-01259-MAD-PJE Document 5 Filed 06/08/26 Page 11 of 11