Latham v. Kings County Hospital

Filing 4

ORDER granting 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis: I grant plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915 solely for the purpose of this order. For the reasons stated in the attached Memorandum and Order, I dismiss the complaint without prejudice. Ordered by Judge John Gleeson on 1/11/2016. (Fallon, Ethan)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------------------------------x

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

HENRY C. LATHAM,
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
15-CV-6582 (JG)

Plaintiff,
-againstKINGS COUNTY HOSPITAL,
Defendants.
---------------------------------------------------------x
JOHN GLEESON, United States District Judge:

Pro se plaintiff Henry C. Latham filed this action on November 16, 2015. I grant
his request to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 solely for the purpose of
this Memorandum and Order. Because I am unable to determine what claim he is advancing, I
dismiss the complaint without prejudice.
DISCUSSION
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), a district court shall dismiss an in forma
pauperis action if it determines that the action “(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.” When a complaint lacks “a short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” as required by Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, it fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted and must therefore be
dismissed. See, e.g., O’Neil v. Ponzi, 394 Fed. App’x 795, 796 (2d Cir. 2010); Solis v. Breslin,
107 Fed. App’x 262, 264 (2d Cir. 2004).
A pro se complaint, however, “must be held to less stringent standards than
formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quoting

Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976) (internal quotation marks omitted)). The Court must
liberally construe a pro se plaintiff’s pleadings and interpret his complaint to raise the strongest
arguments it suggests. McPherson v. Coombe, 174 F.3d 276, 280 (2d Cir. 1999). “The policy of
liberally construing pro se submissions is driven by the understanding that ‘[i]mplicit in the right
to self-representation is an obligation on the part of the court to make reasonable allowances to
protect pro se litigants from inadvertent forfeiture of important rights because of their lack of
legal training.’” Abbas v. Dixon, 480 F.3d 636, 639 (2d Cir. 2007) (quoting Traguth v. Zuck, 710
F.2d 90, 95 (2d Cir. 1983)) (alteration in original).
Construing Mr. Latham’s complaint liberally, I find that it provides no cognizable
facts and fails under Rule 8. Because his complaint is unintelligible, it does not state a claim
upon which relief may be granted.1
CONCLUSION
The complaint is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915
(e)(2)(B). In forma pauperis status is denied for purpose of an appeal because any appeal from
this order would not be taken in good faith. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).

1

Latham has numerous other incomprehensible complaints in this court. See
Latham v. Smith, No. 14 Civ. 3689 (dismissed on August 28, 2014); Latham v. Tyson, No. 14 Civ. 3688 (dismissed
on August 28, 2014); Latham v. Small Court Appellate Div., No. 14 Civ. 3687 (dismissed on August 28, 2014);
Latham v. John, No. 13 Civ. 1468 (dismissed on April 1, 2013); Latham v. Saint Mary Hospital, No 12 Civ. 4692
(dismissed on November 13, 2012); Latham v. Tyson, No. 12 Civ. 4691 (dismissed on November 13, 2012); Latham
v. Latham, No. 12 Civ. 4561 (dismissed on September 19, 2012); Latham v. Transit Adjudicate, No. 11 Civ. 4183
(dismissed on October 6, 2011); Latham v. Fitzgerald, No. 11 Civ. 4728 (dismissed on October 6, 2011); Latham v.
Father Pat Fitzgerald St. Frances 31 St. NYC, No. 11 Civ. 4386 (dismissed on September 29, 2011); Latham v.
Latham, No. 11 Civ. 4582 (dismissed on September 29, 2011); Latham v. Latham, No. 11 Civ. 4219 (dismissed on
September 1, 2011); Latham v. 29 Gallatin Place Brooklyn, No. 11 Civ. 2726 (dismissed on June 13, 2011); Latham
v. 800 Poly Place, No. 10 Civ. 5697 (dismissed on December 17, 2010); Latham v. Latham, No. 10 Civ. 3915
(dismissed on December 14, 2010); Latham v. John, No. 10 Civ. 3445 (dismissed on August 26, 2010); Latham v.
N.Y. Harbor, No. 10 Civ. 2768 (dismissed on August 26, 2010); Latham v. Transit Auth. Civil Gov’t, No. 10 Civ.
2047 (dismissed on July 26, 2010); Latham v. John, No. 09 Civ. 3398 (dismissed on August 20, 2009); Latham v.
Transit Auth. Civil, No. 09 Civ. 1009 (dismissed on July 16, 2009); Latham v. Civil Gov’t Transit Bldg., No. 08 Civ.
2522 (dismissed on July 17, 2008); Latham v. VA Outpatient Hosp., No. 06 Civ. 6758 (dismissed on January 11,
2007); Latham v. Kingsboro Psychiatric Ctr., No. 06 Civ. 1140 (dismissed on April 10, 2006); Latham v. N.Y.
Psychotherapy, No. 04 Civ. 2945 (dismissed on September 3, 2004); Latham v. Iappil, No. 02 Civ. 2523 (dismissed
on June 27, 2002).

So ordered.

John Gleeson, U.S.D.J.
Dated: January 11, 2016
Brooklyn, New York