Roy v. No Defendants Listed

Filing 2

ORDER DISMISSING CASE AS FRIVOLOUS and for failure to stat a claim. So Ordered by Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis on 4/10/2014. (c/m to pro se; fwd'd for jgm) (Lee, Tiffeny)

D/F
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

------------------------------------------------------------)(

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

REV. MS. LISA NIRBAN ROY,
alk!a NIRBAN ROY,
Plaintiff,
-against-

MEMORANDUM & ORDER
14-CV-1960 {NGG) {LB)

SUPREME COURT OF US, HON. J. RBERT,
USA GOVT, MR BILL OBAMA,
ALL STATES OF USA, US CONGRESS,
ASSOCIATED PRESS,
REPUBLICAN PARTY, and
DEMOCRATIC PARTY,
Defendants.

------------------------------------------------------------)(
NICHOLAS G. GARAUFIS, United States District Judge.

I.

BACKGROUND
On March 21, 2014, the court received a large packet of documents, with a return address

for "Rev. Ms. Lisa N. Roy, aka Nirban Roy," with an address in Staten Island. The first page
consists of a generic complaint form for the United States District Court for the Southern District
of Florida. The caption identifies "The Rev. Dr. Kamal K. Roy" as Plaintiff and "Supreme Court
of US, Hon. J. Rbert, USA Govt, Mr Bill Obama, All States of USA, US Congress, Associated
Press, Republican Party, Democratic Party" and other illegible entities as Defendants. The form
is scrawled with various handwritten notations, mostly illegible. Subsequent pages include
correspondence from the Internal Revenue Service addressed to "Nirban Roy" (2nd unnumbered
page) and "Handicap Interests International World Religions Group" and "Joseph Geronimo Jr."
(5th and 6th unnumbered pages); medical records for Lisa Roy (10 1h unnumbered page), and

canceled checks from "Lisa Nirban Roy" (16th unnumbered page). Each page contains
incomprehensible handwritten notations, with references to the above-named entities and prior

court cases. A form request to proceed in forma pauperis captioned for the United States District
Court for the Central District of California is enclosed, listing "Rev. Ms. Lisa N. Roy, aka
Nirban Roy" as Plaintiff. The request to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED for the limited
purpose of this Order. For the reasons set forth below, the action is DISMISSED.
II.

DISCUSSION
Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a plaintiff to provide "(l) a short

and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction ... , (2) a short and plain statement
of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and (3) a demand for the relief sought."
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Rule 8 "demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfullyharmed-me accusation." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). A complaint must contain
"sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face."' Id. (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). The purpose of Rule
8 is to give a defendant fair notice of the claim or claims asserted so as to enable him or her to
answer and prepare for trial. See Simmons v. Abruzzo, 49 F.3d 83, 86 (2d Cir. 1995). "When a
complaint fails to comply with these requirements, the district court has the power, on motion or
sua sponte, to dismiss the complaint." Id. (citing Salahuddin v. Cuomo, 861 F.2d 40, 42 (2d Cir.
1988)). Plaintiffs submission fails to conform to the dictates of Rule 8.
Moreover, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) requires a district court to dismiss a case filed by a
plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis where 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 "the factual contentions are clearly
baseless, such as when allegations are the product of delusion or fantasy." Livingston v.
Adirondack Beverage Co., 141 F.3d 434, 437 (2d Cir. 1998) (internal quotations and citations
omitted). "[A] finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the
2

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). As should be
readily apparent from a casual reading of the Complaint, the claims in this case "rise to the level
of the irrational or the wholly incredible." Id. Accordingly, the case merits dismissal pursuant to
Rule 8 and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii).
The court has considered affording Plaintiff an opportunity to amend the complaint,
cognizant that prose complaints must be read liberally, see McEachin v. McGuinnis, 357 F.3d
197, 200 (2d Cir. 2004 ), and that leave to amend such complaints must be granted if "a liberal
reading of the complaint gives any indication that a valid claim might be stated," Cuoco v.
Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99, 112 (2d Cir. 2000) (quoting Gomez v. USAA Fed. Sav. Bank, 171 F.3d
794, 795 (2d Cir. 1999)). However, because the serious deficiencies in the Complaint are not
such that could be cured by amendment, the court concludes that it would be futile to grant leave
to amend the Complaint. See O'Hara v. Weeks Marine, Inc., 294 F.3d 55, 69 (2d Cir. 2002).

III.

FREQUENT FRIVOLOUS LITIGATION

Although this appears to be Plaintiff Lisa N. Roy's first complaint filed in this District,
the court takes notice of the reference to "The Rev. Dr. Kamal K. Roy" in the Complaint, as well
as overwhelming similarities between the instant filing and the multiple filings previously
submitted by Kamal Karna Roy.
Kamal Kama Roy has an extensive history of litigation in this and other courts, and has
been barred from filing any new in forma pauperis actions in this court without first obtaining
leave of the court. See Roy v. Democratic Republic of USA, No. 08-CV-1257 (DLI), 2008 WL
3413898 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 8, 2008) (enjoining Mr. Roy from filing any new in forma pauperis
action and directing the Clerk of Court to return to Mr. Roy, without filing, any action that is
received without an application seeking leave to file); see also Roy v. United States, No. 06-CV3

685 (SLR), 2007 WL 1109296, *1 (D. Del. Apr. 11, 2007, as amended Apr. 24, 2007) (collecting
cases and summarizing Mr. Roy's nationwide history of litigation); Roy v. Doe, 13-CV-1757,
2013 WL 3246083 (S.D.Tex. 2013) (describing papers filed by Kamal K. Roy that included
correspondence in the name of Lisa Roy).
Plaintiff Lisa N. Roy is hereby warned that the frequent filing of duplicative and
frivolous litigation will result in the imposition of an injunction prohibiting her from filing an in
forma pauperis complaint without the court's prior authorization. See Lau v. Meddaugh, 229
F.3d 121, 123 (2d Cir. 2000) ("The district courts have the power and the obligation to protect
the public and the efficient administration of justice from individuals who have a history of
litigation entailing vexation, harassment and needless expense to other parties and an
unnecessary burden on the courts and their supporting personnel."); In re Sassower, 20 F.3d 42,
44 (2d Cir. 1994) ("With respect to civil litigation, courts have recognized that the normal
opportunity to initiate lawsuits may be limited once a litigant has demonstrated a clear pattern of
abusing the litigation process by filing vexatious and frivolous complaints.").

IV.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the complaint is DISMISSED as frivolous and for failure
to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and for failure to conform to Rule 8(a) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 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 respectfully directed to close the case.
SO ORDERED.

s/Nicholas G. Garaufis

a.

oARAil'Is
NICHOLAS
United States District Judge

Dated: Brooklyn, New York
April Io_, 2014
4