Prophete v. Office of the State Comptroller

Filing 4

ORDER granting 3 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis and DISMISSING COMPLAINT: As stated in the attached Memorandum and Order, the Court finds that the named defendant is protected by Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit. Since plaint iffs Complaint seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief, this action is hereby dismissed pursuant to 28 § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii). 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 The Clerk of Court is directed to send a copy of this Order and the accompanying Judgment to plaintiff. Ordered by Judge Roslynn R. Mauskopf on 2/28/2013. (Mauskopf, Roslynn)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-----------------------------------------------------------X
GERALD PROPHETE,
Plaintiff,

MEMORANDUM & ORDER
13-CV-1057 (RRM)(JO)

- against OFFICE OF THE STATE COMPTROLLER
OFFICE OF UNCLAIMED FUNDS,
Defendant.
-----------------------------------------------------------X
ROSLYNN R. MAUSKOPF, United States District Judge.

Plaintiff Gerald Prophete brings this pro se complaint against the New York State Office
of the State Comptroller Office of Unclaimed Funds. Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma
pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 is granted for the limited purpose of this Order. For the
reason set forth below, the action is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff alleges that he made a claim with the Office of Unclaimed Funds for unclaimed
funds identified under account number 007710406. That office responded with a letter
indicating that the specified account number “has information indicating that this property
belongs to a different Gerald Prophete.” (Compl., Exhibit 4, Jan. 6, 2012 Letter from Laurie H.
Both (ECF p. 6).) Plaintiff asserts that he is the named person and is the owner of the unclaimed
property. He does not indicate whether he submitted additional information to the Office of
Unclaimed Funds or made any further attempt to establish his ownership of the property. He
demands $1 million in damages for emotional distress.

DISCUSSION
A. Standard of Review
In reviewing the Complaint, the Court is mindful 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) (citation
omitted); see also Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant, 537 F.3d 185, 191 (2d Cir. 2008). If a
liberal reading of the complaint “gives any indication that a valid claim might be stated,” this
Court must grant leave to amend the complaint. See Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99, 112 (2d
Cir. 2000); Gomez v. USAA Fed. Sav. Bank, 171 F.3d 794, 795 (2d Cir. 1999). However,
pursuant to the in forma pauperis statute, the Court must dismiss a complaint, or any portion
thereof, if it determines that the action is “(i) frivolous or malicious, (ii) fails to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted, or (iii) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune
from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
B. Eleventh Amendment Immunity
Plaintiff’s claims against the New York State Office of the Comptroller must be
dismissed because states and their agencies are protected by sovereign immunity as guaranteed
by the Eleventh Amendment. See Pennhurst State School & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89,
100 (1984). The Eleventh Amendment bars suits for damages against states, state agencies, and
state officials acting in their official capacity, absent the state’s consent to suit or an express or
statutory waiver of immunity. Board of Trustees of Univ. of Alabama v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356,
363 (2001); Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989). Since the Office of
Unclaimed Funds is a branch of the New York State Office of the Comptroller and state agencies

2

are protected from claims for damages, plaintiff’s claim for damages is dismissed pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii).
CONCLUSION
For the reason stated above, the Court finds that the named defendant is protected by
Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit. Since plaintiff’s Complaint seeks monetary relief
from a defendant who is immune from such relief, this action is hereby dismissed pursuant to 28
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii). 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. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).
The Clerk of Court is directed to send a copy of this Order to plaintiff.
SO ORDERED.

Roslynn R. Mauskopf

Dated: Brooklyn, New York
February 28, 2013

____________________________________
ROSLYNN R. MAUSKOPF
United States District Judge

3