UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK JASON SANTIAGO EL, Plaintiff, 19-CV-7104 (CM) -against- ORDER OF DISMISSAL NEW YORK CITY, Defendant. COLLEEN McMAHON, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiff, appearing pro se, brings this action under the Court’s federal question jurisdiction. By order dated August 21, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed without prepayment of fees, that is, in forma pauperis. For the reasons discussed below, the Court dismisses this action as frivolous. STANDARD OF REVIEW The Court must dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint, or portion thereof, that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.

(e)(2)(B); see Livingston v. Adirondack Beverage Co.,

(2d Cir. 1998). The Court must also dismiss a complaint, or portion thereof, when the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). While the law mandates dismissal on any of these grounds, the Court is obliged to construe pro se pleadings liberally, Harris v. Mills,

(2d Cir. 2009), and interpret them to raise the “strongest [claims] that they suggest,” Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons,

(2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted, emphasis in original). A claim is frivolous when it “lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams,

(1989), abrogated on other grounds by Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,

(2007); see also Denton v. Hernandez,

(1992) (holding that “a finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level of the

irrational or the wholly incredible”); Livingston,

(2d Cir. 1998) (“[A]n action is ‘frivolous’ when either: (1) the factual contentions are clearly baseless . . . ; or (2) the claim is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) BACKGROUND Plaintiff sues the City of New York. He alleges that there is no nexus with any foreign state or corp. victim of this and all courts overreach to restrict my liberty. I have been harmed. The New York City corp has misrepresent the facts to deceive non performing assets counterfeit security I have no contract with any New York City Corp. I am the law and my own free will thinking living being. No corp has any authority of me a private national. (ECF 2, 5.) Plaintiff seeks $10 million in damages. DISCUSSION Even when read with the “special solicitude” due pro se pleadings, Triestman,

, Plaintiff’s claims rise to the level of the irrational, and there is no legal theory on which he can rely. See Denton,

; Livingston,

. District courts generally grant a pro se plaintiff an opportunity to amend a complaint to cure its defects, but leave to amend is not required where it would be futile. See Hill v. Curcione,

(2d Cir. 2011); Salahuddin v. Cuomo,

(2d Cir. 1988). Because the defects in Plaintiff’s complaint cannot be cured with an amendment, the Court declines to grant Plaintiff leave to amend and dismisses this action as frivolous. See

(e)(2)(B)(i). CONCLUSION The Court directs the Clerk of Court to assign this matter to my docket, mail a copy of the order to Plaintiff, and note service on the docket. The Court dismisses this action as frivolous.

(e)(2)(B)(i). The Court certifies under

(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States,

(1962). The Court also directs the Clerk of Court to docket this order as a “written opinion” within the meaning of Section 205(a)(5) of the E-Government Act of 2002. SO ORDERED. Dated: August 30, 2019 , New York, New York hie. In Wik COLLEEN McMAHON Chief United States District Judge