Sanchez Veliz v. NYPD et al
ORDER granting 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis and dismissing the complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) for the reasons set forth in the attached written order. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith and, therefore, in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). The Clerk of Court shall mail a copy of this Order and the accompanying Judgment to Plaintiff. Ordered by Judge Roslynn R. Mauskopf on 6/18/2013. (Mauskopf, Roslynn)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
DELFIN T. SANCHEZ VELIZ,
- against NYPD, ICE, FBI, MIAMI DADE POLICE DEPT.
(MDPD), FLORIDA KEYS POLICE DEPT.
ROSLYNN R. MAUSKOPF, United States District Judge.
On May 13, 2013, plaintiff Delfin T. Sanchez Veliz, appearing pro se, filed this action.
The Court grants plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis solely for the purpose of this
Order and dismisses the complaint as set forth below.
In reviewing plaintiff’s complaint, the Court is mindful 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) (internal quotation marks omitted).
The Court is obliged to construe plaintiff’s pleadings liberally and interpret them as presenting
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 “(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.” 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
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); see also Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Plaintiff’s pleadings are
irrational and incredible. Plaintiff’s allegations – even under the very liberal reading we accord
pro se pleadings, (and even if plaintiff himself believes them to be true), can only be described as
delusional and fantastic. See Denton, 504 U.S. at 33. Plaintiff alleges that defendants are part of
a widespread conspiracy involving police and the Federal Bureau of Investigation in New York,
New Jersey and Florida to harass him because they believe he is Cuban spy based on reports
from his family members. See generally Compl. Since the complaint is devoid of any basis in
law or fact, defects which cannot be cured by amendment, this frivolous action is dismissed.
Livingston, 141 F.3d at 437.
Accordingly, the complaint, filed in forma pauperis, is dismissed as frivolous pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any
appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith and, therefore, in forma pauperis status
is denied for the purpose of an appeal. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).
The Clerk of Court shall mail a copy of this Order and the accompanying Judgment to
Roslynn R. Mauskopf
Dated: Brooklyn, New York
June 18, 2013
ROSLYNN R. MAUSKOPF
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?