Robinson v. Department of Homeless Services et al

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: Plaintiff's 2 requests to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 are granted solely for the purposes of this Order. All three complaints are dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. In light of this Court's duty to liberally construe pro se complaints, the plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint in each of her cases within 30 days of the date of this Memorandum and Order, or by 6/8/2012. If the plaintiff fails to replead within 30 days as directed by this Order, the Court shall enter judgment dismissing the complaints. The Court certifies 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. SO ORDERED by Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto, on 5/8/2012. C/mailed. (Latka-Mucha, Wieslawa)

r' .....~

c~goUm E.D.N.V.
u.s. DISTRiCT~.
:Ie
11'4

~mLE

BROOKLYN OFFICE
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

--------------------------------x
SHEILA ROBINSON,
Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

-against12-CV-1858 (KAM)
MICHAEL BLOOMBERG and CITY HALL,
Defendants.

--------------------------------x
SHEILA ROBINSON,
Plaintiff,
-against12-CV-1859 (KAM)
NEW YORK FEDERAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATIONS and NEW JERSEY
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONS
Defendants.

--------------------------------x
SHEILA ROBINSON,
Plaintiff,
-against12-CV-1860 (KAM)
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELESS SERVICES
and MCI SHELTER,
Defendants.

--------------------------------x
MATSUMOTO, United States District Judge:

Pro se plaintiff Sheila Robinson ("plaintiff H) filed the
above-captioned complaints on April 12,2012.

1

Plaintiff's requests

to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
solely for the purposes of this Order.

§

1915 are granted

For the following reasons,

all three complaints are dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§

1915 (e) (2) (B) (ii) for failure to state a claim on which relief may

be granted, and the plaintiff is granted leave to replead within
thirty days as set forth below.

THE COMPLAINTS
The Court is unable to determine the nature of plaintiff's
claims.

The hand-written complaints each demand a jury trial and

allege violations of plaintiff's civil rights, but they do not allege
any specific act or omission by any defendant.
The first complaint, Robinson v. Bloomberg, et al., No.
12-CV-1858, names Mayor Michael Bloomberg and City Hall as defendants
and alleges, among other things, "Harrassement-predaton" [sic],
"Criminal State and Federal stalking," and "conspiracy to Attempt
to Confinement and violate constitutional and civil Housing Rights
and corruption" [sic].

This complaint seeks "$80 Billion Dollars

due to perpetrators['] wealth and resources," injunctive relief in
the form of a "criminal prosecution," and a "cease and decease of
stalking" [sic].

Additionally, the first complaint seeks an

immediate preliminary injunction to freeze all state and federal
funds allocated for homeless residents of New York City until an
investigation is conducted into the distribution of housing funds.

2

The second complaint, Robinson v. New York Fed. Bureau of
Investiga tions, et al., No. 12-CV-1859, names the "New York Federal

Bureau of Investigations" and the "New Jersey Federal Bureau of
Investigations" as defendants.

The complaint alleges, among other

things, the defendants' "Failure To Prosecute NYC Mayor for 3rd term
corruption term" and "Not Enforcing criminal Prosecution of a Federal
and State stalking complaint that has left me Homeless and put safety
in immense danger" [sic].

This second complaint seeks "$100 Billion

dollars due to the wealth of Perpetrators and their Resources" as
well as injunctive relief in the form of "special prosecutors" and
"Relocation Assistance."
The third complaint, Robinson v. Dep't of Homeless Servs.,
et al., No. 12-CV-1860, names the Department of Homeless Services
and "MCI Shelter" located at 200 Tillary Street in Brooklyn, New York
as defendants.

This complaint alleges "[H]arassement, criminal

conspiracy, criminal conspiracy to cause and attempt to confine in
a State Mental Facility, Medical Malpractice, Retaliation,
conspiracy to violate civil and constitutional Rights, cruel and
mental distress,

[and] Retaliation conspiracy" [sic].

The third

complaint seeks $500 million dollars, an apology from both
defendants, and "Admittance to the conspiracy to cause mental
distress and intentional criminal attempt to violate Housing Right
for Equal Housing - Criminal Charges" [sic].
3

DISCUSSION
The court is mindful that "[a] document filed pro se is
to be liberally construed, and a pro se complaint, however inartfully
pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal
pleadings drafted by lawyers."
(2007)

Erickson v. Pardus, 551

u.s.

(internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

89, 94
If a

liberal reading of the complaint "gives any indication that a valid
claim might be stated," the court must grant leave to amend the
complaint.

Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99, 112 (2d Cir. 2000).

Pursuant to the in forma pauperis statute, however, a district court
must dismiss a case if the court determines that the action "is
frivolous or malicious; fails to state a claim on which relief may
be granted; or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune
from such relief."

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) (2) (B).

Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires
a plaintiff to provide" (1) a short and plain statement of the grounds
for the court's jurisdiction . . . ; (2) a short and plain statement
of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; and (3)
a demand for the relief sought . . .

"

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).

Rule

8 "demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfullyharmed-me accusation."
(citation omitted).

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)

Rather, a complaint must contain "sufficient

factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that
4

is plausible on its face.'"

(citation omitted).

Id.

"[AJ

plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds' of his
'enti tIe [ment J to relief' requires more than labels and conclusions,
and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will
not do.

Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief

above the speculative level."
544, 555

(2007)

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.

(citations omitted).

Although the plaintiff alleges violations of her
constitutional rights, she fails to provide any factual basis for
her claims.

In order to bring a claim under the Civil Rights Act,

as codified at 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential
elements:

"(1) that the conduct in question deprived a person of

a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution or the
laws of the United States, and (2) that the acts were attributable
at least in part to a person acting under color of state law."
v. Brown, 268 F. App'x 127, 129 (2d Cir. 2008)
(citation omitted).

Garcia

(summary order)

The statute applies only to state actors, and

not to federal officials.
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of
Narcotics, 403 U.s. 388 (1971), however, permits recovery for some

constitutional violations by federal agents, even in the absence of
a statute conferring such a right.
14, 18 (1980).

See Carlson v. Green, 446 U.s.

Under both 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Bivens, claims must
5

be brought against the individuals personally responsible for the
alleged deprivation of rights, not against the state or federal
government or its agencies.

See Thomas v. Ashcroft, 470 F.3d 491,

496 (2d Cir. 2006).
Plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action against
any of the named defendants in the three cases.

She has not specified

any harm or alleged that any individual defendant is personally
liable for violating her constitutional rights.

Indeed, only one

of the named defendants is an individual, and he appears to have been
named in his official capacity as the mayor of New York City.

In

order to assert claims under the Civil Rights Act or Bivens, the
plaintiff must identify the individuals who are personally
responsible for the alleged deprivation of her rights.
LEAVE TO AMEND

In light of this court's duty to liberally construe pro
se complaints, the plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended
complaint in each of her cases wi thin thirty days of the date of this
Memorandum and Order, or by June 8, 2012.
F.3d 593, 597-98 (2d Cir. 2000).

See Cruz v. Gomez, 202

The plaintiff is instructed that

any amended complaint must comply with Rule 8 (a) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure, in that it must clearly state the grounds for
relief and include legible factual allegations.

Plaintiff must

clearly identify each named defendant and state the specific
6

allegations against each.

Additionally, she must provide locations

and dates for each incident.

Each amended complaint must be

captioned "Amended Complaint," and bear the same docket number as
the complaint it is intended to replace.

All further proceedings

shall be stayed for thirty days.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the above-captioned in

forma pauperis complaints are dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§

1915 (e) (2) (B) (ii) for failure to state a claim on which relief may

be granted.

All proceedings shall be stayed for 30 days.

If the

plaintiff fails to replead within thirty days as directed by this
Order, the court shall enter judgment dismissing the complaints.

The

court certifies 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.
v. United States, 369

u.s.

438, 444-45 (1962).

See Coppedge

The Clerk of the Court

is respectfully requested to serve a copy of this Memorandum and Order
on the pro se plaintiff and note service on the docket.

SO ORDERED.
Dated:

Brooklyn, New York
May 8, 2012

/S/
KIYO A. MATSUMOTO
United States District Judge

7