NEWARK, NJ – A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit filed by a New Jersey woman who sought nearly $800 billion in damages from the state’s Department of Military and Veterans Affairs, ruling that the complaint lacked any factual or legal basis.
In a decision issued by U.S. District Judge Julien X. Neals, the court dismissed the case with prejudice, meaning it cannot be refiled. The plaintiff, Yanilda A. Toro, had filed the case on October 8, 2024, along with an application to proceed without paying court fees under the in forma pauperis statute.
Toro, who represented herself, claimed the agency wrongfully refused to help her apply for survivor’s benefits following her father’s death in 2014. She alleged that agency staff declined to assist when she was unable to answer certain questions about her father’s service and death. The complaint also referenced years of homelessness and involuntary hospitalizations, which she attributed to the agency’s inaction.
Court finds claims incoherent and unsupported
In the months following her initial filing, Toro sent additional letters to the court demanding extraordinary sums — including a request for “$900 centillion raised to the power of 900 centillion” — and making unrelated claims of harassment, forced sterilization, and loss of child custody.
Judge Neals wrote that even when viewed under the liberal standards applied to pro se litigants, Toro’s filings “fail to allege sufficient facts” that would entitle her to any legal relief. The decision noted that her complaint did not identify any specific constitutional or statutory violation committed by the defendants.
No viable federal claim under Section 1983
Because Toro’s filings did not specify a legal cause of action, the court construed them as an attempt to bring a civil rights claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which allows lawsuits against state officials for constitutional violations. However, Judge Neals found that the New Jersey Department of Military and Veterans Affairs is not a “person” subject to suit under Section 1983 and that Toro’s allegations failed to establish any deprivation of constitutional rights.
Citing the Supreme Court’s standards in Ashcroft v. Iqbal and Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, the court said Toro’s complaint relied only on “labels and conclusions” without factual content to support a plausible claim.
Case dismissed as frivolous and without merit
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), federal courts must screen cases filed by indigent plaintiffs and dismiss those deemed frivolous or failing to state a claim. Judge Neals determined that Toro’s lawsuit met both criteria.
“The Court is mindful that pro se pleadings are to be construed liberally,” Neals wrote, “but even pro se litigants must allege sufficient facts to support a claim.”