SARBOUKH v. DAVIS et al

Filing 2

OPINION fld. Signed by Judge Jose L. Linares on 4/9/15. (sr, )

*NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

J.SARBOUKH,
Civil Action No. 15-451 (JLL)

Plaintiff,
v.

:

OPINION

SARAH T. DAVIS, et al.,
Defendants.
LINARES, District Judge:
Currently before the Court is the complaint of Plaintiff, J. Sarboukh, (ECF No. 1), and
Plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis. (Attachment 2 to ECF No. 1). Plaintiffs
complaint purports to be a civil rights complaint brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983. Based on

the information contained in Plaintiff’s application to proceed informa pauperis, the Court finds
that leave to proceed in this Court without prepayment of fees is authorized, 28 U.S.C. 1915, and
§
will therefore order the Clerk of the Court to file Plaintiffs Complaint. As the Court grants
Plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis, the complaint is subject to sua sponte
screening by the Court. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2). As the Court finds that Plaintiffs complaint

fails to comply with the requirements of Rule 8 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court will
dismiss Plaintiffs complaint without prejudice to the filing of an amended complaint within thirty
(30) days.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff is currently civilly committed at the Special Treatment Unit
New Jersey.

He filed the instant complaint on January 20, 2015.

—

Annex in Avenel,

(ECF No. 1). Plaintiff’s

complaint purports itself to be a civil rights complaint brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983.

(ECF No. 1 at 2). In the Complaint, Plaintiff names six defendants: Sarah Davis,
who Plaintiff
names as the Assistant Administrator of the facility in which he is committed; Kevin
Boden, who
Plaintiff alleges is the “Head of Internal Affairs”; J. Jones, apparently the “Head
of Safety &
Security” at the STU; Erica Brown Austin, who Plaintiff refers to as the “head”
of his “treaters”;
Curtis Austin, who Plaintiff alleges is a “convicted killer”; and Chante Brame
Adams, who
Plaintiff names as the “Director of Treators.” (ECF No. 1 at 1).
The allegations against these Defendants in Plaintiff’s complaint are handwritten,
often
illegible and unintelligible. (ECF No. 1 at 4-6). These allegations contain numer
ous illegible or
obscured notes in the margins, and crossed or scribbled out writings. (Id.). The
size ofPlaintiff’s
writing varies wildly, often being too miniscule to be legible. (Id.). Plaintiff use
of capitalization
and punctuation also varies considerably between portions of the text, further hinder
ing the Court’s
ability to understand his allegations. (Id.). Even where written in large enough
text that some
attempt can be made at discerning its meaning, the writing remains difficult to

read and confusing.

Plaintiff’s Complaint appears to arise out of an alleged “ADA violation” and
the failure of
staff at the STU to protect Plaintiff from another inmate, Defendant Curtis Austin
. (ECF No. 1 at
4). Because of the illegible writing, the Court is unable to discern exactly
what is the “ADA

Plaintiff’s caption also refers to all six defendants as employees of either
the Department of
Corrections or Department of Human Services and “Racist black{sj.”
2

violation” about which Plaintiff complains. Likewise, the Court cannot discern the nature of
the
apparent failure to protect complaint. Plaintiff makes repeated references to anti-Semitic
“hate
crimes,” allegations that Austin stabbed him, and alleges that there is a “racist black”
double
standard being applied to him. From the few phrases that the Court can discern, Plainti
ff appears
to provide no information to how these allegations apply to Defendants other than Sarah Davis
and
Kevin Boden.

While Plaintiff’s allegations directed at Ms. Boden are made up of his

unintelligible allegations of double standards and claims of an “ADA violation,” in regard
s to
Boden, Plaintiff only legibly states that Boden “assured [Plaintiff] convicted killer Curtis
Austin
will be charged with Anti-Semitic ‘hate crimes’ of violence[.j” What remains
of the claims
regarding these, and the remaining Defendants, is entirely unintelligible.

II. DISCUSSION
Under the Rule 8, a claim for relief must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. Rule Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Each
averment in a
complaint must likewise be “concise and direct.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e)(1). A distric
t Court may
dismiss a complaint sua sponte for failure to comply with Rule 8. Ruther v.
State Kentucky
Officers, 556 F. App’x 91, 92 (3d Cir. 2014). A complaint may therefore
be dismissed pursuant

to Rule 8 where the “complaint is so confused, ambiguous, vague, or otherwise
unintelligible that
its true substance, if any, is well disguised.” Id. (quoting Simmons v. Abruzzo,
49 F.3d 83, 86 (2d
Cir. 1995)). Dismissal is proper, therefore, where a complaint is illegible,
incomprehensible, or
largely unintelligible. See Id.; Scibelli v. Lebanon Cnty., 219 F. App’x 221,
222 (3d Cir. 2007);
Stephanatos v. Cohen, 236 F. App’x 785, 787 (2007). In dismissing an unintel
ligible complaint
3

pursuant to Rule 8, however, the Court must provide the party whose pleadin
g is dismissed an
opportunity to amend, therefore the appropriate action when faced with an uninte
lligible compl

aint

is to dismiss the complaint without prejudice to the filing of an amended compl
aint. Ruther, 556
F. App’x at 92; Moss v. United States, 329 F. App’x 335, 336 (3d Cir. 2009); Simmo
ns, 49 F.3d at
86-87,

Plaintiff’s complaint is largely unintelligible. Whatever claim Plaintiff may have
against
Defendants, that claim is so obscured by the confused, illegible, and often
unintelligible writing
which Plaintiff has submitted, that the Court cannot discern the true nature
of Plaintiffs claims.
As such, dismissal of Plaintiffs complaint is warranted under these circumstances
. Ruther, 556
F. App’x at 92; Simmons, 49 F.3d at 86-87. The Court will therefore
dismiss the complaint
without prejudice. Plaintiff, however, shall be given leave to amend the
complaint. Ruther, 556
F. App’x at 92; Moss v. United States, 329 F. App’x 335, 336 (3d Cir. 2009);
Simmons, 49 F.3d at
86-87.

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, Plaintiffs application to proceed in forma
pauperis is
GRANTED, and the complaint shall be filed. As Plaintiff has failed
to provide the necessary
short and plain statement required by Rule 8, however, Plaintiffs
complaint is DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE, and Plaintiff is given leave to file an amend
ed complaint within thirty
(30) days. If Plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, that
complaint should be either
typewritten or legibly handwritten with no text written in the margin
s, and with the text of a size
equivalent to a 12 point font size. An appropriate order follows.
4

seL. Linares, U.S.D.J
DATED: April 9, 2015

5