Latham v. Latham et al

Filing 4

ORDER granting 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; ORDER DISMISSING CASE: Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted solely for the purposes of this Order and, for the reasons stated in the Order, the Complaint is dismissed. The Clerk is respectfully directed to close the case. In forma pauperis status is denied for purpose of appeal. Ordered by Judge John Gleeson on 9/18/2012. (Sheketoff, Julia)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

HENRY C. LATHAM,
Plaintiff,
- versus -

ORDER
12-CV-4561

GERALDINE LATHAM,
Defendant.

JOHN GLEESON, United States District Judge:
Pro se plaintiff Henry Latham filed this claim on September 10, 2012. I grant his
request to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 solely for the purpose of this
Order. Because I am unable to determine what claim he is advancing, I dismiss the complaint
without prejudice.
DISCUSSION
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), a district court shall dismiss an in forma
pauperis action if it determines that the action “(i) is 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.” When a complaint lacks “a short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” as required by Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, it fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted and must therefore be
dismissed. See, e.g., O’Neil v. Ponzi, 394 Fed. App’x 795, 796 (2d Cir. 2010); Solis v. Breslin,
107 Fed. App’x 262, 264 (2d Cir. 2004).
A pro se complaint, however, “must be held to less stringent standards than
formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quoting
Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)) (internal quotation marks omitted). The court must
liberally construe a pro se plaintiff’s pleadings and interpret his complaint to raise the strongest

arguments it suggests. McPherson v. Coombe, 174 F.3d 276, 280 (2d Cir. 1999). “The policy of
liberally construing pro se submissions is driven by the understanding that ‘[i]mplicit in the right
to self-representation is an obligation on the part of the court to make reasonable allowances to
protect pro se litigants from inadvertent forfeiture of important rights because of their lack of
legal training.’” Abbas v. Dixon, 480 F.3d 636, 639 (2d Cir. 2007) (quoting Traguth v. Zuck, 710
F.2d 90, 95 (2d Cir. 1983)) (alteration in original).
Construing Mr. Latham’s complaint liberally, I find that it fails under Rule 8.
Because it is illegible, it is incomprehensible and does not state a claim upon which relief may be
granted. 1
CONCLUSION
The complaint is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B). In forma pauperis status is denied for purpose of an appeal because any appeal
from this order would not be taken in good faith. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).
So ordered.

John Gleeson, U.S.D.J.
Dated: September 18, 2012
Brooklyn, New York

1

Latham has numerous other incomprehensible complaints in this court. See Latham v. Transit
Adjudicate, No. 11 Civ. 4183 (dismissed on October 6, 2011); Latham v. Fitzgerald, No. 11 Civ. 4728 (dismissed on
October 6, 2011); Latham v. Father Pat Fitzgerald St. Frances 31 St. NYC, No. 11 Civ. 4386 (dismissed on
September 29, 2011); Latham v. Latham, No. 11 Civ. 4582 (dismissed on September 29, 2011); Latham v. Latham,
No. 11 Civ. 4219 (dismissed on September 1, 2011); Latham v. 29 Gallatin Place Brooklyn, No. 11 Civ. 2726
(dismissed on June 13, 2011); Latham v. 800 Poly Place, No. 10 Civ. 5697 (dismissed on December 17, 2010);
Latham v. Latham, No. 10 Civ. 3915 (dismissed on December 14, 2010); Latham v. John, No. 10 Civ. 3445
(dismissed on August 26, 2010); Latham v. N.Y. Harbor, No. 10 Civ. 2768 (dismissed on August 26, 2010); Latham
v. Transit Auth. Civil Gov’t, No. 10 Civ. 2047 (dismissed on July 26, 2010); Latham v. John, No. 09 Civ. 3398
(dismissed on August 20, 2009); Latham v. Transit Auth. Civil, No. 09 Civ. 1009 (dismissed on July 16, 2009);
Latham v. Civil Gov’t Transit Bldg., No. 08 Civ. 2522 (dismissed on July 17, 2008); Latham v. VA Outpatient
Hosp., No. 06 Civ. 6758 (dismissed on January 11, 2007); Latham v. Kingsboro Psychiatric Ctr., No. 06 Civ. 1140
(dismissed on April 10, 2006); Latham v. N.Y. Psychotherapy, No. 04 Civ. 2945 (dismissed on September 3, 2004);
Latham v. Iappil, No. 02 Civ. 2523 (dismissed on June 27, 2002).

2