Ahmed v. Congress Member Nydia Velasquez

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis and dismissing the complaint with leave to file an amended complaint within 30 days of the date of this Order. SEE ATTACHED ORDER. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of the attached Memorandum and Order to plaintiff. Ordered by Judge Roslynn R. Mauskopf on 9/21/2011. (Mauskopf, Roslynn)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-----------------------------------------------------------X
JAMODA FULLER AHMED,
Plaintiff,

MEMORANDUM & ORDER
11-CV-4456 (RRM)(JO)

- against CONGRESS MEMBER NYDIA VELASQUEZ,

Defendant.
-----------------------------------------------------------X
ROSLYNN R. MAUSKOPF, United States District Judge.
Plaintiff Jamoda Fuller Ahmed filed this pro se civil rights complaint against the
Honorable Nydia Velasquez, U.S. Representative for the 12th congressional district of New York
(“Velasquez”). The Court grants plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915 solely for the purpose of this order. The complaint is dismissed with leave to
replead within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order.
BACKGROUND
This is plaintiff’s second action against a United States Congressperson in this Court. In
her first, Ahmed v. Maloney, 10-CV-5102 (RRM), plaintiff sued U.S. Representative Carolyn
Maloney. Since the complaint consisted of “nothing but a string of broadly-articulated harms”
and “not a single factual allegation,” by Order dated January 27, 2011, defendant’s motion to
dismiss was granted because the complaint failed to state a claim for relief, or give Defendant
fair notice of the claims filed against her. 10-CV-5102, slip op. at 2-3. The Order further stated
that the dearth of information precluded it from making any conclusions as to Defendant’s
possible legislative immunity. Plaintiff was afforded, however, thirty days to file an amended
complaint. When she did not, judgment entered on April 1, 2011.

Plaintiff now files the instant action against Velasquez. She recites phrases and case
citations without supporting facts and seemingly no connection whatsoever to Velasquez or each
other. Her statement of claim is as follows:
Civil rights of members of her family sua sponte only complaint triestman vs. fed.
Bureau of Prisons 470 F.3d 471, 474-75 (2d Cir. Complaint at III(a)(c). Id. 9 III
(c). Id [ ] of civil Rights violations on behalf of her family. Include facts
implicating tortious respect President Obama and other federal created or
acquiesced. Nil city of NY Queens Igbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949. Mem[o] of law DOL
No 6) at 3. Citing Branum v. Clark 927 f. 2d 698, 705 (2d Cir. 1991). Complaint.
Defendants order judgment for court certify pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 19915.
Complaint at III(C).
DISCUSSION
The Instant Complaint
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 is “(i) 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.” However, a court must construe a pro se litigant’s pleadings liberally, see
Chavis v. Chappius, 618 F.3d 162, 171 (2d Cir. 2010), especially when those pleadings allege
civil rights violations. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed
Defendant #1, 537 F.3d 185, 191-93 (2d Cir. 2008). A pro se complaint should not be dismissed
without granting a pro se plaintiff leave to amend “at least once when a liberal reading of the
complaint gives any indication that a valid claim might be stated.” Gomez v. USAA Fed. Sav.
Bank, 171 F.3d 794, 795 (2d Cir. 1999) (per curiam).
Although courts must read pro se complaints with “special solicitude” and interpret them
to raise the “strongest arguments that they suggest,” Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470
F.3d 471, 474-76 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted), a complaint must plead

2

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 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.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, __ U.S. __, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citation
omitted). While “detailed factual allegations” are not required, “[a] pleading that offers ‘labels
and conclusions’ or ‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Id.
(quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). Similarly, a complaint is insufficient to state a claim “if it
tenders ‘naked assertion[s]’ devoid of ‘further factual enhancement.’” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550
U.S. at 557). Finally, the complaint must comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure which states that a complaint must “contain ... a short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).
This complaint is nearly indecipherable. To the extent it can be deciphered, it fails to
provide the Court with notice of what claim or claims she seeks to make. Even affording it the
broadest construction imaginable, the complaint fails to notify the defendant of the claim against
her or to plead any facts sufficient to state a claim to relief as to any party. Thus, the complaint is
dismissed for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
Leave To Amend
Despite the fact that plaintiff’s allegations are incomprehensible and fail to provide notice
of the claim she seeks to raise, in light of plaintiff’s pro se status, Cruz v. Gomez, 202 F.3d 593
(2d Cir. 2000), plaintiff is afforded thirty days from the date of this Order to amend her
complaint in order to provide a basis for this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction and to comply

3

with the dictates of Rule 8.1 See Fed R. Civ. P. 15(a); see e.g., Davis v. Goord, 320 F.3d 346,
352 (2d Cir. 2003) (“Certainly the court should not dismiss without granting leave to amend at
least once when a liberal reading of the [pro se] complaint gives any indication that a valid claim
might be stated.”) (quoting Gomez v. USAA Fed. Sav. Bank, 171 F.3d 794, 795 (2d Cir.1999));
Hernandez v. Goord, No. 01 Civ. 9585, 2004 WL 719171, *10 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2004).

1

The Court forewarns plaintiff that the sole defendant she has named to this action, “Congress Member Nydia
Velasquez,” is absolutely immune for her legislative acts. The Speech or Debate Clause of the United States
Constitution. Article I, Section 6, of the Constitution provides that “for any Speech or Debate in either House,”
Senators and Representatives “shall not be questioned in any other Place.” When this legislative immunity applies,
Senators and Representatives are shielded from any award of damages or prospective relief, and cannot be put to the
“burden of defending themselves.” Sup. Ct. of Va. v. Consumers Union of the U.S., 446 U.S. 719, 732 (1980)
(quoting Dombrowski v. Eastland, 387 U.S. 82, 85 (1967)).

4

CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the complaint as currently stated is dismissed. 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). However, plaintiff shall be afforded leave to file an amended complaint
within 30 days of the date of this Order. The amended complaint must be legible and provide
facts giving rise to her federal claims against defendant. The amended complaint must be
captioned “Amended Complaint” and bear the same docket number as this Order. Plaintiff is
advised that the amended complaint will completely replace the complaint. No summons shall
issue at this time and all further proceedings are stayed for thirty days for plaintiff to comply
with this Order. Once submitted, the amended complaint will be reviewed for compliance with
this Order and for sufficiency under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 & 12(h)(3) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
If plaintiff fails to comply with this Order within the time allowed, the complaint shall be
dismissed for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted and judgment will enter.
The Court certifies pursuant to 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. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).
The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this Order to plaintiff.
SO ORDERED.

Roslynn R. Mauskopf

Dated: Brooklyn, New York
September 21, 2011

____________________________________
ROSLYNN R. MAUSKOPF
United States District Judge

5