Johnson v. Doyle et al

Filing 7

ORDER DISMISSING CASE: For the reasons stated in the attached Memorandum and Order, 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). 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 purpose of an appeal. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 44445 (1962). The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this Memorandum and Order, and the accompanying Civil Judgment, to the plaintiff, and note the mailing on the docket. Ordered by Judge Roslynn R. Mauskopf on 11/5/2012. (Mauskopf, Roslynn)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------------------X
JOHN ARTHUR JOHNSON,
Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
12-CV-04723 (RRM)(MDG)

-againstMABLE A. DOYLE; RODNEY DOYLE;
ROBERT DOYLE,

Defendants.
---------------------------------------------------------X
ROSLYNN R. MAUSKOPF, United States District Judge.
On September 18, 2012, plaintiff John Arthur Johnson, currently incarcerated at Rikers
Island, filed the instant pro se action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1985. (Doc. No. 1.) The Court
grants plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, (Doc. No.
2), solely for the purpose of this Order. For the reasons discussed below, the complaint is
DISMISSED.
BACKGROUND
Defendant Mable A. Doyle is plaintiff’s maternal aunt, and defendants Rodney Doyle and
Robert Doyle are Ms. Doyle’s adopted sons. (Compl. ¶¶ 5–6, 8.) Plaintiff alleges that Ms.
Doyle wrote him a check for $105,966.50 after the sale of her home in 2005. (Id. at ¶¶ 15–17.)
On June 5, 2008, Ms. Doyle allegedly filed charges against plaintiff, saying that she only gave
him the money to hold “for safe keeping.” (Id. at ¶ 25.) On December 1, 2008, plaintiff was
allegedly arrested on a New York warrant for Grand Larceny. (Id. at ¶ 23.) Plaintiff states that
Mable Doyle’s “account of the events are libelous, and defamatory, and violates [his] Civil
Rights,” and that the other two defendants conspired with Ms. Doyle “by not being forth coming
with the truth.” (Id. at ¶ 26.) Plaintiff seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief. (Id. at ¶¶
31–37.)

STANDARD OF REVIEW
Pro se complaints are held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by
attorneys, and the Court is required to read plaintiff’s pro se complaint liberally and interpret it
as raising the strongest arguments it suggests. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007);
Triestman v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474–75 (2d Cir. 2006) (per curiam).
Moreover, at the pleadings stage of the proceeding, the Court must assume the truth of “all wellpleaded, nonconclusory factual allegations” in the complaint. Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum
Co., 621 F.3d 111, 123 (2d Cir. 2010) (citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678–79 (2009)). A
complaint must plead sufficient facts to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell
Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). Nonetheless, pursuant to the in forma
pauperis statute, the Court must dismiss a case 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
DISCUSSION
Even granting plaintiff’s complaint the liberal reading required, he fails to state a claim
under 42 U.S.C. § 1985 for a conspiracy by two or more persons to deprive him of equal
protection of the laws. “In order to state a conspiracy claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3), a
plaintiff must show: (1) a conspiracy; (2) for the purpose of depriving, either directly or
indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal
privileges and immunities under the laws; (3) an act in furtherance of the conspiracy; (4)
whereby a person is either injured in his person or property or deprived of any right or privilege
of a citizen of the United States. A § 1985(3) conspiracy must also be motivated by some racial
or perhaps otherwise class-based, invidious discriminatory animus behind the conspirators’
action.” Cine SK8, Inc. v. Town of Henrietta, 507 F.3d 778, 791 (2d Cir. 2007) (citations and

quotation marks omitted). A plaintiff “must provide some factual basis supporting a meeting of
the minds, such that defendants entered into an agreement, express or tacit, to achieve the
unlawful end.” Webb v. Goord, 340 F.3d 105, 110–11 (2d Cir. 2003) (citations and quotation
marks omitted). A complaint containing “only conclusory, vague, or general allegations of
conspiracy to deprive a person of constitutional rights” must be dismissed. Gyadu v. Hartford
Ins. Co., 197 F.3d 590, 591 (2d Cir. 1999) (quoting Sommer v. Dixon, 709 F.2d 173, 175 (2d Cir.
1983).
Here, plaintiff’s conspiracy allegation is entirely conclusory. Plaintiff has failed to allege
any “meeting of the minds” between any of the defendants. Nor is there any explanation of the
agreement allegedly reached to deprive plaintiff of his rights. Moreover, he does not identify
any racial or other class-based motive for defendants’ actions. Plaintiff does not even allege that
he is a member of any relevant class. Therefore, plaintiff’s conspiracy claim is dismissed
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). See, e.g., Boddie v. Schnieder, 105 F.3d 857, 862 (2d
Cir.1997) (affirming the dismissal of “conclusory, vague or general allegations of conspiracy to
deprive a person of constitutional rights”).
CONCLUSION
For the reasons above, 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). 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 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 Memorandum and Order, and the
Civil Judgment, to the plaintiff, and note the mailing on the docket.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: Brookl yn, New York
November 5, 2012

Roslynn R. Mauskopf
_________________________________
ROSLYNN R. MAUSKOPF
United States District Judge