Henry v. Rodriqiez

Filing 42

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: For the reasons stated in the attached memorandum and order, this matter is DISMISSED with prejudice. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to mail a copy of this Order to the pro se plaintiff and close this case. Ordered by Judge LaShann DeArcy Hall on 2/5/2024. C/M as to pro se pltff. Christopher Henry. (CG)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

CHRISTOPHER A. HENRY,
Plaintiff,
v.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
21-cv-1211 (LDH) (JRC)

DAMIAN RODRIGUEZ,
Defendant.

LASHANN DEARCY HALL, United States District Judge:
On March 1, 2021, Plaintiff initiated this action alleging violations of his constitutional
rights. (See ECF No. 1.) For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed in its
entirety.
DISCUSSION
On March 1, 2021, Plaintiff initiated this action alleging violations of his constitutional
rights. (See ECF No. 1.) While in the care of Kingsbrook Psychiatric Center, Plaintiff claims
that Defendant—a mental health therapy aide—stabbed and choked Plaintiff. (Id. at 4.) As for
relief, Plaintiff states: “I want the court [sic] give me $807,426,924,482,745,00.” (Id. at 5.) On
May 25, 2023, Defendant filed a letter request for a pre-motion conference in anticipation of his
motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 35.) Defendant attaches the Summons and Complaint, which
includes a handwritten letter from Plaintiff that reads as follows:
In the law suit I am asking for over $800 Billions. We can make a
deal. On the summons it says if you do not respond, judgment by
default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the
complaint.

1

If you do not respond to complaint, I promise you $200 Billions for
you and your family. And I will keep $600 Billions. Do not respond
to the complaint. Give me your telephone number to split the
money.
Truly, C.A.
(ECF No. 35-1.)
The Court has the “inherent power” to issue sanctions for bad faith conduct to protect
the integrity of the judicial system, the orderly administration of justice, and to maintain the
authority of the Court. See Chambers v. Nasco, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43-44 (1991); see also Ceglia
v. Zuckerberg, 600 F. App’x 34, 36 (2d Cir. 2015) (“A court has ‘inherent power’ to ‘fashion an
appropriate sanction for conduct which abuses the judicial process.’”). Although a particularly
severe sanction, outright dismissal is within the Court’s discretion. Id. (citing Chambers, 501
U.S. at 45). In particular, “[w]here conduct reflects ‘flagrant bad faith,’ dismissal may be
warranted ‘not merely to penalize’ but also ‘to deter those who might be tempted to such conduct
in the absence of such a deterrent.’” Davis v. Saint Luke's-Roosevelt Hosp. Ctr., 771 F. App'x
116, 116 (2d Cir. 2019) (quoting Nat’l Hockey League v. Metro. Hockey Club, Inc., 427 U.S.
639, 643 (1976)).
Here, Plaintiff plainly sought to abuse the judicial process. As the Summons
demonstrates, Plaintiff sought to conspire with Defendant in an ill-fated effort to collect
“[b]illions” of dollars by encouraging Defendant not to respond to the complaint.1 Of course,
Plaintiff never stood to collect the amount he seeks, but his efforts to abuse the judicial process
nonetheless warrant outright dismissal of this lawsuit. See Davis, 771 F. App'x at 117 (affirming

1

A court may consider any written instrument attached to the complaint, as well as statements and
documents “incorporated in [the complaint] by reference” without converting a motion to dismiss into one
for summary judgment. Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc., 282 F.3d 147, 152 (2d Cir. 2002). And even
where a document is not incorporated by reference, the Court may nonetheless consider it where the
complaint “relies heavily upon its terms and effect,” which renders the document “integral” to the
complaint. Id. (citing Int'l Audiotext Network, Inc. v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 62 F.3d 69, 72 (2d Cir. 1995).
2

outright dismissal of pro se action based on the “egregiousness” of plaintiff sending threatening
text messages to his attorney); Ramsey v. Broy, No. 08-CV-0290-MJR-DGW, 2010 WL
1251199, at *6 (S.D. Ill. Mar. 24, 2010) (dismissing action where plaintiff sought to bribe a
witness to influence his testimony); Lee v. Sass, No. 04-70550, 2006 WL 799176, at *1 (E.D.
Mich. Mar. 29, 2006) (dismissing pro se action where plaintiff sought to “suborn perjury from a
material witness”).
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED in its entirety.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: Brooklyn, New York
February 5, 2024

/s/ LDH
LaSHANN DeARCY HALL
United States District Judge

3