Clervrain v. Cissna et al

Filing 9

MEMORANDUM & ORDER: The Clerk of Court is directed to reopen this case for purposes of this Order. Plaintiff's complaint, filed in forma pauperis, is dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Plaintiff's July 2021 motions are denied as moot. I certify 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 the purpose of any appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 44445 (1962). The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment and close this case. ORDER ATTACHED. Ordered by Judge Eric R. Komitee on 7/14/2021. c/m. (Guy, Alicia)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------x
MANETIRONY CLERVRAIN,
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
20-CV-2197(EK)(LB)

Plaintiff,
-againstFRANCIS CISSNA, et al.,
Defendant.
------------------------------------x
ERIC KOMITEE, United States District Judge:

Plaintiff Manetirony Clervrain, proceeding pro se,
filed the instant complaint in May 2020 from federal prison.

I

dismissed the action without prejudice because Plaintiff failed
to submit the necessary Prison Litigation Reform Act
authorization form with his complaint.

ECF. No. 5.

Nearly one

year later, Plaintiff, who is no longer incarcerated, 1 filed two
motions in this case:

one entitled a “Motion for a More

Definite Statement for Mitigating Financial Burden or (‘IFP’)
Constitutional Issues by Massive issues [‘Right Aggravated’]
Treatment Act,” ECF No. 7, and another entitled a “Motion for
More Definite Statement for [‘Prompt Notices’] or [‘Their
Expertise Act’] (‘TEA’), or Opinions by the National Issues

Plaintiff was released from federal prison on August 29, 2019. See
Bureau of Prisons, Inmate Locator, https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc (last
visited July 14, 2021).
1

Regulatory Treaties Act (‘NIRTA’),” ECF No. 8.

I now vacate my

prior Order dismissing the case, direct the Clerk of Court to
reopen the action for purposes of this Order, dismiss the
complaint on the merits, and deny Plaintiff’s recent motions as
moot.
I.

Discussion

Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, I read his
complaint liberally and interpret it as raising the strongest
arguments it suggests.

Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94

(2007); Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9 (1980).

I must also

assume the truth of “all well-pleaded, nonconclusory factual
allegations” in the complaint.

Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum

Co., 621 F.3d 111, 124 (2d Cir. 2010).
Despite this lenient standard, the complaint still
must meet certain benchmarks to survive dismissal.

Under

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), a district court must dismiss an in
forma pauperis action where it is satisfied 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.”

An action

is “‘frivolous’ when either: (1) the factual contentions are
clearly baseless,” . . . 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
2

quotations and citations omitted).

“[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).
Plaintiff’s instant complaint must be dismissed under

this standard.

It identifies no causes of action.

seek any form of relief.

Nor does it

Instead, the complaint references the

Immigration and Nationality Act, the Freedom of Information Act,
genocide, apartheid, the International Court of Justice, and the
Vienna Convention without explaining how these subjects relate
to each other or to Plaintiff’s case.

Nothing suggests that

these defects could be cured by amendment.

Therefore, the

action is dismissed without leave to amend.

See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B).
II.

Conclusion

For the reasons stated above, the Clerk of Court is
directed to reopen this case for purposes of this Order.
Plaintiff’s complaint, filed in forma pauperis, is dismissed.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
denied as moot.

Plaintiff’s July 2021 motions are

I certify 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 the purpose of any
appeal.

See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444–45
3

(1962).

The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment and

close this case.

SO ORDERED.
/s/ Eric Komitee__________________
ERIC KOMITEE
United States District Judge
Dated:

July 14, 2021
Brooklyn, New York

4