Justice v. Kuhnapfel

Filing 17

MEMORANDUM & OPINION: Accordingly, all claims against defendants Judge Armstrong and Liz Beal are dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The Clerk of Court is directed to amend the caption to reflect the dismissal of these defendants. Plaintiff's false arrest claim shall proceed against Defendants Kuhnapfel and Holme. The United States Marshal Service is directed to serve the summons, Complaint, the Court's 2/22/2013 Order, Amended Complaint and th is Order upon Defendants Kuhnapfel and Holme without prepayment of fees. A courtesy copy of the same papers shall be mailed to the Corporation Counsel for the City of New York. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.c. § 1915(a)(3) that any ap peal would not be taken in good faith and therefore IFP status is denied for the purpose of any appeal.SO ORDERED by Judge Margo K. Brodie, on 4/22/2013. Copy of this Order sent to pro se Plaintiff and Corporation Counsel via first class mail. (Parties: Judge Armstrong and Liz Beal terminated.) (Latka-Mucha, Wieslawa)

f\LEU

CLERK'CSo~JiClD.N.V.

IN
U.S. DISTRICT

* APR 2: 2 2013 *

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------------------------------}C

BROOKLYN OFFICE
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

BRENDA JUSTICE,
Plaintiff,

MEMORANDUM & ORDER
13-CV-659 (MKB)

v.
NY OFFICER RICHARD KUHNAPFEL,
NY OFFICER GREG HOLME, JUDGE
M. ARMSTRONG, and LIZ BEAL,
Defendants.
-----------------------------------------------------------}C
MARGO K. BRODIE, United States District Judge.
On February 1, 2013, pro se Plaintiff Brenda Justice filed this action against defendant
Richard Kuhnapfel, also naming her seven-year old son H.J. as a plaintiff. By Order dated
February 22, 2013, Plaintiff was advised that she could not bring claims on behalf of her son and
the claim as to H.J. was dismissed without prejudice.} The Court also granted Plaintiff 30 days
leave to file an amended complaint to name the individuals responsible for the alleged denial of
her constitutional rights as defendants. On March 22, 2013, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint
adding "NY Officer Greg Holme," Judge M. Armstrong and Liz Beal as defendants. For the
reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs claims against Judge Armstrong and Liz Beal are dismissed

} By letter dated March 18,2013, Plaintiff argues that because she is a New York State
resident she should be able to bring claims on behalf of her son. Plaintiffs assertions are
misguided. As previously discussed, Plaintiff, as a lay person, cannot bring claims on behalf of
her child or represent him in this action. Guest v. Hansen, 603 F.3d 15,20 (2d Cir. 2010) ("A
person who has not been admitted to the practice of law may not represent anybody other than
himself."); KLA v. Windham Se. Supervisory Union, 348 F. App'}C 604, 605-06 (2d Cir. 2009)
(summary order) {"Although litigants in federal court have a statutory right to act as their own
counsel, 28 U.S.C. § 1654, the statute does not permit 'unlicensed laymen to represent anyone
other than themselves.' That prohibition e}Ctends to non-lawyer parents seeking to represent their
children, and the representation of incompetent adults." (citations omitted».

without prejudice and Plaintiff may proceed on the false arrest claim against Kuhnapfel and
Holme.

I.

Discussion
a.

Standard of Review

A complaint must plead "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face." Bell Atlantic 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, 556 U.S.
662, 678 (2009). Although all allegations contained in the complaint are assumed to be true, this
tenet is "inapplicable to legal conclusions." Id In reviewing apro se complaint, the court must
be mindful that the plaintiff s pleadings should be held "to less stringent standards than formal
pleadings drafted by lawyers." Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5,9 (1980) (internal quotation marks
omitted); Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir. 2009) (noting that even after Twombly, the
court "remain[s] obligated to construe a pro se complaint liberally"). Nevertheless, the court
must screen "a complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental
entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity" and, thereafter, "dismiss the complaint,
or any portion of the complaint," if it is "frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted." 28 U.S.C. § 1915A; see Abbas v. Dixon, 480 F.3d 636,639 (2d Cir.
2007). Similarly, the court is required to dismiss sua sponte an in forma pauperis ("IFP") action,
if the court determines it "(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); Abbas, 480 F.3d at 639.

2

b.

False Arrest

Liberally construing Plaintiff s Complaint, it appears that she attempts to assert a false
arrest claim against Defendants Kuhnapfel and Holme stemming from her arrest on October 15,
2012. (See Am. Compi. at 1.) To state a claim for false arrest or false imprisonment "a plaintiff
must show that '(1) the defendant intended to confine the plaintiff, (2) the plaintiff was conscious
of the confinement, (3) the plaintiff did not consent to the confinement, and (4) the confinement
was not otherwise privileged.'" Savino v. City ofNew York, 331 F.3d 63,75 (2d Cir. 2003)
(citations omitted). The existence of probable cause is a complete defense to a § 1983 claim for
false arrest. See Paulin v. Figlia, No. ll-CV-9634, 2013 WL 120167, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 10,
2013) (quoting Bernard v. United States, 25 F.3d 98, 102 (2d Cir. 1994)); Alexiadis v. NY. Call.
of Health Professions, 891 F. Supp. 2d 418,434 (E.D.N.Y. 2012) (quoting Weyant v. Okst, 101
F.3d 845, 852 (2d Cir. 1996)). In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Kuhnapfel and
Holme wrongfully arrested her on October 15,2012 for kidnapping. (Am. Compi. 1.) The
charges related to this arrest were apparently dismissed on November 14,2012. (See Documents
Annexed to Amend. CompI.) Therefore, the Court will allow Plaintiffs false arrest claim
against these Defendants to proceed.

c.

Personal Involvement

Although Plaintiff also names Judge Armstrong and Beal as defendants, she fails to
discuss or make any allegations against these Defendants in her complaint. (See generally Am.
CompI.) It is well settled law in this Circuit that in a civil rights action for monetary damages, a
plaintiff must demonstrate the defendants' direct or personal involvement in the actions which
are alleged to have caused the constitutional deprivation. Reynolds v. Barrett, 685 F.3d 193,204
(2d Cir. 2012); Farid v. Ellen, 593 F.3d 233,249 (2d Cir. 2010); Farrell v. Burke, 449 F.3d 470,
484 (2d Cir. 2006); Wright v. Smith, 21 F.3d 496,501 (2d Cir. 1991). A plaintiff must "allege a

3

tangible connection between the acts of the defendant and the injuries suffered." Bass v.

Jackson, 790 F .2d 260, 263 (2d Cir. 1986); Rickett v. Orsino, No. 1O-CV -5152, 2013 WL
1176059, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 20, 2013), report and recommendation adopted, No. 10-CV5152,2013 WL 1155354 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 21, 2013); Johnson v. New York, No. ll-CV-5186,
2012 WL 5424515, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 6, 2012). Thus, Plaintiffs claims against Judge
Armstrong and Beal must be dismissed. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 677.

II.

Conclusion
Accordingly, all claims against defendants Judge Armstrong and Liz Beal are dismissed

without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The Clerk of Court is directed to
amend the caption to reflect the dismissal of these defendants. Plaintiffs false arrest claim shall
proceed against Defendants Kuhnapfel and Holme.
The United States Marshal Service is directed to serve the summons, Complaint, the
Court's February 22,2013 Order, Amended Complaint and this Order upon Defendants
Kuhnapfel and Holme without prepayment of fees. A courtesy copy of the same papers shall be
mailed to the Corporation Counsel for the City of New York. The Court certifies pursuant to
28 U.S.c. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and therefore IFP status
is denied for the purpose of any appeal. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45
(1962).

SO cjRDERED:

/

/S/ Judge Margo K. Brodie

Dated: April 22, 2013
Brooklyn, New York
4