Nelson v. People of the United States of America et al
Filing
6
ORDER granting 5 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis is hereby granted. For the reasons stated in the court's Order, plaintiff's claims are dismissed for failure to comply with Rule 8. In light of this courts duty to liberally construe pro se complaints, plaintiff is given thirty (30) days leave to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff is directed that any amended complaint must comply with Rule 8(a), in that it must clearly state the grounds for relief and include specific factual allegations. All proceedings shall be stayed for 30 days. If plaintiff fails to replead within 30 days as directed by this Order, the court shall enter judgment dismi ssing the complaint. 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 purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to serve a copy of this order on plaintiff and note service on the docket by July 24, 2015. Ordered by Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto on 7/21/2015. (Tsay, Stephanie)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------x
DERIC NELSON,
Plaintiff,
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
-againstMEMORANDUM AND ORDER
15 Civ. 3626
THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA: Department of Justice;
Federal Court Eastern District NY;
STATE OF NEW YORK: NYS District
Attorneys’ Office (Kings County), NYS
District Attorneys’ Detectives, NYS
Department of Mental Health and
Hygiene, NYS Supreme Court (Kings
County) Criminal Term and Civil, NYS
Office of Mental Health (Kirby
Forensic Hospital), NYS Supreme Court
Court Officers; CITY OF NEW YORK: NYC
Corrections Department Rikers Island,
NYC Police Department, NYC Health and
Hospitals Corporation (Kings County
Hosp. Center), NYC Marshals; BROOKLYN
LEGAL AID SOCIETY, 18B Assigned
Counsel Plan,
Defendants
---------------------------------------x
MATSUMOTO, United States District Judge:
On June 18, 2015, the court received pro se plaintiff
Deric Nelson’s complaint dated June 10, 2015, along with a money
order for $50.
On June 23, 2015, the Clerk’s Office mailed a
letter returning the money order and directing plaintiff to
either pay the full filing fee of $400 or to submit a completed
application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”).
submitted an IFP application on July 15, 2015.
1
Plaintiff
His request to
proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 is hereby
granted.
For the reasons that follow, however, the complaint is
dismissed with leave to replead within thirty (30) days
consistent with this Order.
BACKGROUND
The complaint is captioned “Notice of Claim” and
contains a laundry list of claims, but no factual allegations to
support them.
Plaintiff alleges that his claims arise “from NYS
Court: Supreme, Civil, and Criminal Term, and Federal Court
Cases,” but the only court case he mentions is “NYS Supreme
Court Case # 00046-2010.”
(Complaint at 1-2.)
He cites Title
42 of the United States Code and “Constitutional Rights
Violations,” but does not identify any alleged deprivation of
his rights.
(Compl. at 1.)
He states that his property was
seized without due process, but does not identify any property
that was seized.
(Id.)
He alleges that he was arrested without
probable cause, falsely imprisoned, and detained without bail,
but fails to provide any details regarding a arrest or
detention.
(Compl. at 2.)
Plaintiff further asserts that his
life was endangered while he was in custody, because he was
placed in the general population and his identity was revealed,
but he does not describe any threatening incidents.
(Id.)
He
also alleges a series of unspecified claims related to New York
2
State’s Mental Health and Hygiene Law and torts related to
reputation and loss of income.
(Id.)
Plaintiff states that “this claim accrued” between
December 28, 2009 through March 30, 2015, and that the “act(s)
took place” in the Kings County court, Rikers Island, Kirby
Forensic Center, and District Attorney’s Offices.
(Id.)
He
provides no details of specific incidents.
Plaintiff alleges that he served a “Notice of
Intention to File a Claim” on June 10, 2015, and that such
service was “filed within 120 days of the exhaustion of
claimant’s administrative remedies.”
(Id.)
He does not
identify any administrative procedures he undertook.
seeks billions of dollars in damages.
Plaintiff
(Compl. at 3.)
DISCUSSION
The court is mindful that “[a] document filed pro se
is to be liberally construed, and 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 and citations
omitted).
If a liberal reading of the complaint “gives any
indication that a valid claim might be stated,” the Court must
grant leave to amend the complaint.
F.3d 99, 112 (2d Cir. 2000).
See Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222
However, pursuant to the in forma
pauperis statute, a district court must dismiss a case if the
3
court determines that the complaint “is frivolous or malicious;
fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or seeks
monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such
relief.”
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
Moreover, a plaintiff
seeking to bring a lawsuit in federal court must establish that
the court has subject matter jurisdiction over the action.
If
the court “determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter
jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”
Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12(h)(3); accord Yong Qin Luo v. Mikel, 625 F.3d 772, 775 (2d
Cir. 2010).
Federal subject matter jurisdiction is available only
when a “federal question” is presented, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or
when plaintiffs and defendants have complete diversity of
citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, 28
U.S.C. § 1332.
“Federal question jurisdiction may be properly
invoked only if the plaintiff’s complaint necessarily draws into
question the interpretation or application of federal law.”
State of New York v. White, 528 F.2d 336, 338 (2d Cir. 1975).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 8 requires a
plaintiff to provide “(1) 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
4
unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-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.
“[A]
plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his
entitlement to relief requires more than labels and conclusions,
and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action
will not do. . . .
Factual allegations must be enough to raise
a right to relief above the speculative level.”
Bell Atlantic
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (internal quotations
and citations omitted).
The instant complaint fails to comply with the
dictates of Rule 8.
Plaintiff has not provided any factual
matter that would support his claims for relief.
He vaguely
alleges that he was arrested, detained, and prosecuted in New
York State Supreme Court, but he does not provide any details
that would suggest a violation of his constitutional rights.
Should plaintiff wish to bring a civil rights action pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983, he must name the individual defendants who
personally deprived him of his constitutional rights and
describe the specific incidents in which his rights may have
been violated.
5
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis
is hereby granted.
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s
claims are dismissed for failure to comply with Rule 8.
In
light of this court’s duty to liberally construe pro se
complaints, plaintiff is given thirty (30) days leave to file an
amended complaint.
Plaintiff is directed that any amended
complaint must comply with Rule 8(a), in that it must clearly
state the grounds for relief and include specific factual
allegations.
Plaintiff must clearly identify each named
defendant and state the specific allegations against each.
must provide locations and dates for each incident.
He
The amended
complaint must be captioned “Amended Complaint,” and bear the
same docket number as this order.
Plaintiff is also advised
that an amended complaint does not simply add to the first
complaint. Once an amended complaint is filed, it completely
replaces the original. Therefore, it is important that plaintiff
include in the amended complaint all the necessary information
that was contained in the original complaint.
All proceedings shall be stayed for 30 days.
If
plaintiff fails to replead within 30 days as directed by this
Order, the court shall enter judgment dismissing the complaint.
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
6
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 the Court is respectfully directed to
serve a copy of this order on plaintiff and note service on the
docket by July 24, 2015.
SO ORDERED.
________________________
KIYO A. MATSUMOTO
United States District Judge
Dated:
Brooklyn, New York
July 21, 2015
7
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?