Geer v. Brown et al

Filing 8

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: Geer's amended complaint is therefore dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment and close the case. The Court ce rtifies 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 any appeal. Comedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). Ordered by Judge Carol Bagley Amon on 6/3/2016. (fwd for judgment) (Fernandez, Erica)

FILED

IN 9l5RlfS OFFICE
U.1. DISTRICT COURT E.D.N. Y.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

-----------------------------------------------------------------x

PAKENAUTH GEER,

* JUH - ~,2016

k

8ROOKLYN OFFICE

Plaintiff,
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
14-CV-6172 (CBA) (ST)

-againstRICHARD BROWN; JACK WARSA WSKY·
'
CATHERINE TABINSKY,
Defendants.'

------------------------------------------------------------------x
AMON, United States District Judge:

By Order dated June 30, 2015, the Court granted plaintiff Pakenauth Geer's request to
proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and dismissed his complaint for failure to
state a claim on which relief may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(l). Geer v. Brown,
No. 14-CV-6172 (CBA) (LB), 2015 WL 4042166 (E.D.N.Y. June 30, 2015). The Court granted
Geer leave to amend his complaint only as to his prison mail interference and denial of access to
the courts claims. Id. at *6. He has filed an amended complaint. (D.E. # 7 ("Am. Comp!.").) For
the following reasons, Geer' s amended complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim on which
relief may be granted.
In his amended complaint, Geer raises claims, now all too familiar to the Court,2 relating
to his criminal conviction and "resentenc[ing] to 17 years flat bid." (Am. Comp!. at I.) He
describes his sentence as originally a "12 to 17 years split bid, with (parole release within 5 years)"
rather than his current sentence of" 17 years flat bid, with 5 years post release supervision." (!<!)

' Although not named in the caption, Geer also asserts claims agai~st Audrey Pheffer and Kenneth H.olde~.
Geer raised virtually identical claims in two other cases before this Court and m his first complamt m this case. ~
Geer v. Tabinsky. No. 14-CV-6672 (CBA) (LB), 2015 WL 4042168, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. July I, 2015); Geer v. Brown,
No. 14-CV-6172 (CBA) (LB), 2015 WL 4042166, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. July I, 2015); Geer v. Pheffer, No. 14-CV-2829
(CBA) (LB), 2015 WL 332996, at *2-4 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 23, 2015).

2

1

In particular, Geer alleges that (I) he was resentenced "without [his] knowledge"; (2) Richard
Brown, the Queens County District Attorney; Jack Warsawsky, an assistant district attorney; and
Catherine H. Tabinsky, a court reporter, somehow acted illegally to extend his sentence; and
(3) unnamed "officers and officials" "harass and torment" him and "prevent[] [him] from getting
help from the outside agency and officials."

C!!Ll

Geer has also appended three documents to his amended complaint. The first is a letter
from Geer to Human Rights Watch accusing his lawyer of tricking him into pleading guilty. (Id.
at 2.) The second is filled with incomprehensible strings of text. (Id. at 3 (a sample runs: "m!HU
kHTHCIU AG aODHT").) The third is a document from the Queens County Clerk's Office, which
includes a brief description of Geer' s sentence and a notation informing him that the office returned
his check because he made it out to the wrong party. (Id. at 4.)
When the Court dismissed Geer' s original complaint in this case, it "grant[ ed] him leave
to amend his prison mail interference and denial of access to the courts claims-and only those
claims." Geer v. Brown, 2015 WL 4042166, at *6. Geer has amended his complaint, but if
anything he has provided less information as to these claims than in his original complaint. He
now says only that unnamed and unspecified "officers and officials" "harass and torment" him and
"prevent[] [him] from getting help from the outside agency and officials." (Am. Comp!. at I.)
These claims are conclusory: they do not identify the officers or officials responsible nor do they
specify where those officials work. See Ashcroft v. Igbal, 556 U.S. 662, 681 (2009). To the extent
Geer's conclusory allegations refer to actions by officers at Washington Correctional Facility,
where he is currently incarcerated, the Court notes that claims arising from events that took place
at the Washington Correctional Facility should be filed in the Northern District of New York. See
Order, Geer v. Tabinsky, No. 14-CV-6672 (CBA) (LB) (E.D.N.Y. July 28, 2015). These claims

2

are therefore dismissed for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(b)(I).

The rest of Geer's claims have already been considered and dismissed by this Court. The
Court's June 30 Order did not grant Geer leave to amend his complaint as to his claim that Brown,
Warsawsky, and Tabinsky had "conspired to falsify a transcript in his case" or his claim that this
conspiracy resulted in the imposition of an extended prison sentence. See Geer v. Brown, 2015
WL 4042166, at *2-3, 6 (dismissing those claims as res judicata and expressly declining to let
Geer replead those allegations). In fact, in a case filed after this one, in which Geer raised precisely
these claims, the Court "admonished [Geer] to cease filing allegations restating the claims now
twice dismissed as barred by the doctrine of res judicata," and warned that "[t]hose claims will
meet the same fate if raised again." Geer v. Tabinsky. No. 14-CV-6672 (CBA) (LB), 2015 WL
4042168, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. July I, 2015); see also Geer v. Pheffer, No. 14-CV-2829 (CBA) (LB),
2015 WL 332996, at* 1-4 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 23, 2015) (dismissing similar claims). Here, once more,
these claims are barred by the doctrine of res judicata.
Geer's amended complaint is therefore dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § I 915A(b)(I). The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment
and close the case. 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 any appeal. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).
/1

SO ORDERED.

s/Carol Bagley Amon

3 ,

2016
Dated: June
Brooklyn, New York

3