Taylor v. Internet.com/ethernet et al

Filing 4

ORDER granting 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis and DISMISSING plaintiff's complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1915(e)(2)(B) for the reasons set forth in the attached Order. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this Order to plaintiff pro se and indicate the mailing on the electronic docket. Ordered by Judge Roslynn R. Mauskopf on 5/18/2012. (Mauskopf, Roslynn)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-----------------------------------------------------------X
ERIC DEXTER TAYLOR,
Plaintiff,

MEMORANDUM & ORDER
12-CV-2025 (RRM)(JMA)

- against INTERNET.COM/ETHERNET;
TRADECOMMISSIONS.ORG.GOV;
FREETRADEASSOCIATION.ORG,
Defendants.1
-----------------------------------------------------------X
ROSLYNN R. MAUSKOPF, United States District Judge.

On April 18, 2012, plaintiff Eric Dexter Taylor, filed this pro se action against
defendants. The Court grants plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis solely for the
purpose of this Order. The complaint is dismissed as set forth below.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff’s statement of claim consists of the following:
Wile I was in Rikers Island my health was slowing being depleted beyond
cercumstance do to neglagence I received servere headaches from medication my
case files has a numorus counts of dispasision in my cases.
I’m sueing under tort law for misconduct cruel an unusual punishment and health
hazardus condition agrivated harassment and illegaly holding me under there
corrections camp by law system with exsesive bail structures.
(Compl. (Doc. No. 1) at ¶ IV (grammatical and spelling errors in original).) Plaintiff seeks “tort
compensation punitive damages.” (Id. at ¶ V.) Inexplicably, plaintiff attaches several unmarked
exhibits to the complaint: (1) a Freedom of Information Act Request, (2) information from the
Federal Trade Commission, (3) a partially-completed complaint for econsumer.gov.

1

Plaintiff includes as an additional defendant: “NY Corrections Bureau, all sections or union.” (See Compl. (Doc.
No. 1) at ¶ III (B).)

STANDARD OF REVIEW
In reviewing the complaint, the Court is aware that plaintiff is proceeding pro se and that
“a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than
formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). The Court is
obliged to construe plaintiff’s pleadings liberally and interpret them as raising the strongest
arguments they suggest. Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir. 2009). Nonetheless, the Court
may dismiss a complaint “at any time” if the Court determines that it 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.” An action is “frivolous” when either: (1)
“the ‘factual contentions are clearly baseless,’ such as when allegations are the product of
delusion or fantasy;” or (2) “the claim is ‘based on an indisputably meritless legal theory.’”
Livingston v. Adirondack Beverage Co., 141 F.3d 434, 437 (2d Cir. 1998) (internal citation
omitted).
DISCUSSION
Insofar as plaintiff’s claims are related to his prior incarceration on Rikers Island, (see
Compl. (Doc. No. 1) at p. 4), his complaint is dismissed. To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. §
1983, a plaintiff must establish that the defendant deprived him of a federal or constitutional
right while acting under the color of law. Haywood v. Drown, 556 U.S. 729, 731 (2009). A
complaint must contain sufficient factual content to allow the district court “to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant[s] [were] liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); see also Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556
(2007). Although all allegations contained in the complaint are assumed to be true, this tenet is
“inapplicable to legal conclusions.” Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at 678.

2

Here, plaintiff’s claims of negligence, misconduct and harassment, among others, are
conclusory and do not provide facts to support his conclusions or name the individuals
personally involved in these claims. Plaintiff also attached to his complaint over 100 pages of
what appear to be exhibits, but which are comprised of, inter alia, pages from a jury instruction
on an agency defense in a drug trial, a request under the Freedom of Information Act, an
incoherent handwritten statement, a pharmacy monograph for Risperidone, pages from a Words
and Phrases volume printed off of Lexis Nexis, a page from a form petition for release of
escheated land, pages from what appears to be an online treatise on unclaimed property and a
printout of a Federal Trade Commission webpage giving instructions for filing a consumer
complaint. However, none of this material has any relevance to any claim that could be gleaned
from plaintiff’s complaint.
In addition, plaintiff seeks to sue “internet.com/ethernet, tradecommissions.org and
freetradeassociation.org, (see Compl. (Doc. No. 1) at p. 1, Unmarked Exhibits). The Supreme
Court has observed that a “finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged
rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible, whether or not there are judicially
noticeable facts available to contradict them.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992);
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). After construing plaintiff’s pleadings liberally
and interpreting them as raising the strongest arguments they suggest, the Court finds that to the
extent plaintiff attempts to sue these defendants, (see Compl. (Doc. No. 1), Unmarked Exhibits),
there is no legal theory on which he may rely. Livingston, 141 F.3d at 437 (observing that
dismissal is proper where allegations are “product of delusion or fantasy”) (internal quotation
marks omitted)). For all of the above reasons, plaintiff’s claims are dismissed.

3

CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the complaint, filed in forma pauperis, is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B) as set forth above. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any
appeal would not be taken in good faith and, therefore, in forma pauperis status is denied for the
purpose of any 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 pro se and indicate the mailing on the
electronic docket.

SO ORDERED.

Roslynn R. Mauskopf

Dated: Brooklyn, New York
May 18, 2012

____________________________________
ROSLYNN R. MAUSKOPF
United States District Judge

4