Paulstich v. Merrick Post Office et al

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM & ORDER. Plaintiff's Complaint is sua sponte DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to state a plausible claim. The Court certifies that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith and in forma pauperis status is DENIED for the purpose of an appeal. This case is CLOSED. Ordered by Judge Joanna Seybert on 4/11/2014. (C/M Plaintiff) (Nohs, Bonnie)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------X
WENDY K. PAULSTICH,
Plaintiff,
-against-

MEMORANDUM & ORDER
14-CV-2169(JS)(WDW)

MERRICK POST OFFICE,1 MERRICK POST
OFFICE, MASSAPEQUA POST OFFICE,
MASSAPEQUA POST OFFICE, MASSAPEQUA
POST OFFICE, JOHN DOE, TERESA DOE,
CAPITAL ONE BANK, MORGAN CHASE
BANK, JIM GAVIN, ANDREW MILLER,
Son GARY MILLER, MARY CAVE, MATHEW
REBECCA, RUSSEL, MICHAEL SELTZER,
DAVE DENNEBERG [SIC] & his wife,
DAVE DENNEBERG [SIC], ROBERT & DIANE
BAQUET, and Kids JESSICA, JENNIFER,
WILLIAM, ROBERT,
Defendants.
----------------------------------X
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff:
Wendy K. Paulstich, pro se
1889 Gormley Avenue
Merrick, NY 11566
For Defendants:

No appearances.

SEYBERT, District Judge:
On April 4, 2014, pro se plaintiff Wendy K. Paulstich
(“Plaintiff”) filed a seventy-seven page document purporting to be
a single Complaint against twenty-six defendants.

Plaintiff paid

the $400.00 fee to file what she styled as a single Complaint.
1

Plaintiff lists the Merrick Post Office twice and the
Massapequa Post Office three times in her caption apparently
because she seeks to sue each branch. In addition, Plaintiff
lists Nassau County Legislator David Denenberg twice in the
caption because she seeks to sue him at both of his business
addresses. Multiple listings of the entities or individuals
that Plaintiff seeks to sue based on their having several
addresses is not necessary.

For

the reasons that follow, notwithstanding Plaintiff’s payment of the
filing fee, her Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
BACKGROUND2
Plaintiff’s lengthy submission is difficult to comprehend
and her rambling allegations are fanciful, disjointed, and largely
conclusory. Using multiple copies of the Court’s general Complaint
form, Plaintiff has listed her allegations against the defendants,
identifying at the top of each page the defendant(s) to which the
allegations in the Statement of Claim pertain.
For example, the first “Statement of Claim” page is at
page 22 (Compl., Docket Entry 1, at 223) and indicates that these
allegations pertain to the Merrick Post Office.

There, Plaintiff

alleges that the events giving rise to her claim occurred “when my
mother was alive and they were playing with mail.” (Compl. at 22.)
According to Plaintiff, in 2010, her “mother called the post office
to stop playing with the mail [and] they did nothing.”
22.)

(Compl. at

Plaintiff then “called the Postal Inspector and has been

involved with them up to this year[],” and claims that “[i]t is the
Nassau DA who is steeling [sic] with them.”

(Compl. at 22.)

Plaintiff next alleges that, “[i]n the Merrick Rd. Post Office an

2

The following facts are taken from Plaintiff’s Complaint and
are presumed to be true for the purpose of this Memorandum and
Order.
3

The page numbers for the Complaint are those generated by the
Electronic Case Filing System.
2

Asian is involved also in DMV fraud and phony tickets with someone.
The Nassau County Traffic Courts are aware she is playing with
[the] mail.”

(Compl. at 22.)

Plaintiff further claims that she

got the Postal Inspector involved but “[s]he is involved with banks
and Asians all over violating our civil rights.

Every Asian in

Merrick and their businesses should be investigated.

They harrass

[sic] continuously and probably are steeling [sic] from a lot of
people.”

(Compl. at 22.)
In the section of the Complaint form that calls for the

identification of any injuries suffered, Plaintiff wrote:
Missing checks extortion at Capital One &
Chase. My mother is dead. I think they have
been involved with the Fire Department and
showing up when my mother never called. Then
injecting her. That is why I continually get
diabetes off her medical records. This is a
sham with Teresa and these Asians. Probably
doing it to a lot of Elderly. Since it was an
Asian Doctor in [B]ellmore[,] an eye doctor
when she had a [sic] eye checkup I couldn’t
believe there was diabetes on her records.
(Compl. at 22.) For relief, Plaintiff seeks to have the “Asians in
the Merrick Post Office charged with Fraud Identity Theft [and to
have] all my mail returned, money returned and the DMV ticket sham
exposed what postal employees are doing with someone in Albany.”
(Compl. at 23.)

Plaintiff also seeks to have “[t]hese postal

employees charged with violating our right to privacy in Dental and
Medical offices, banks & anywhere else they are involved.” (Compl.
at 23.)

Plaintiff further seeks “an investigation of Bethpage DMV
3

where the Asians are involved with another Asian there in DMV
fraud.”

(Compl. at 23.)
The next “Statement of Claim” indicates that these

allegations pertain to the Massapequa Post Office. (Compl. at 24.)
There, Plaintiff alleges that the events giving rise to her claim
occurred “when Merrick started harrassing [sic] me about a Hell’s
Angel who works at the Massapequa Post Office.”

(Compl. at 24.)

According to Plaintiff, [she] “found out about him when she worked
at On Parade Diner.

He was married to this Teresa and both Nassau

& Suffolk busted it up.”

(Compl. at 24.)

Plaintiff claims not to

know “which Massapequa Post Office he works in” and alleges that
“someone was involved in Merrick when it was busted and is involved
now. This was going on at 1880 Gormley Ave. Merrick. Carolyn
Kramen.

She moved and these Henkals that moved in are involved in

the same thing.

They are involved with the liers [sic] when it was

originally busted.”

(Compl. at 24.)

Plaintiff next alleges that

she “lived in Dix Hills -- my divorce papers are inclosed [sic]
where I lived for a long time after separating from my x husband
[sic].

These Henkals have been lying & threatening since the day

they moved in to 1880 and don’t even know me and my family.”
(Compl. at 24.)

In the section of the Complaint form than calls

for the identification of any injuries suffered, Plaintiff wrote:
My mother is
lied about my
my mother who
are numerous

dead, Henkall has continually
children and was doing this to
her grandchildren were. There
other neighbors involved now
4

because of the negligence of the Nassau DA. I
have never had a conversation with Henkal
[sic].
That is how nuts she is.
Never
bothered to ask me. They want to steal. We
cannot do my mother’s estate until this is
busted up.
(Compl. at 24.)

For relief, Plaintiff seeks to have “[e]verything

that has gone one with the Merrick Post Office stopped [and]
investigated.”

(Compl. at 25.)

Plaintiff also seeks to have the

[e]mployees involved in Massapequa charged
with their crimes. What priests were involved
with and the Diocese of Rockville Centre
exposed for what they are doing. This is not
a religion.
These are hate crimes by the
Diocese of Rockville Centre. We have a right
to be Protestant. How can a Post Office be
involved with this kind of hate? I should get
back 3x the amount played with or stollen
[sic] because organized crime was involved.
(Compl. at 25.)
The Complaint continues in this fashion.

As can best be

summarized, Plaintiff complains in the balance of the Complaint
that: (1) she was threatened in 2010 because she is not a nurse
(Compl. at 30); (2) she was stalked and threatened everywhere she
goes because she is Protestant and the Catholic church is involved
(Compl. at 28); (3) her mother was harassed in 2003 by “Teresa Doe”
when Plaintiff was divorcing her ex-husband, John Baquet (Compl. at
30); (4) she is being harassed “by every Jew in Merrick” (Compl. at
30); (5) Capital One Bank harassed her in 2010 about her mother’s
driving even though her mother never drove a car and the “bank is
totally involved in extortion & fraud with the Catholic church when
5

we are not Catholic” (Compl. at 33, 35); (6) the Catholic church
was involved at Chase Bank in 2009 and put a tax judgment on
Plaintiff’s account that was not hers (Compl. at 43); (7) Jim Gavin
is a drug addict who has been involved “in some Catholic scam”,
does not know Plaintiff, and “has no right to be involved anywhere
in my life[,] my mother[’]s or my children or in any Bank” (Compl.
at 47); (8) Michael Seltzer “is an abusive creep who was in New
York” (Compl. at 59); (9) Plaintiff attended County Legislator
Denenberg’s “community meeting so his mentally ill wife could see
who I was [and] Denneberg [sic] & his wife both saw me for about 2
hours and they never saw me in their life” (Compl. at 64); (10)
Kathleen Rice is a liar because Plaintiff was not born on June 22,
has never been incarcerated at the Riverhead Jail, and never owned
a bagel store in Oyster Bay.

(Compl. at 66, 72.)

DISCUSSION
I.

Standard of Review
The Court is required to read a pro se plaintiff’s

Complaint

liberally

and

arguments it suggests.

construe

it

to

raise

the

strongest

See, e.g., McEachin v. McGuinnis, 357 F.3d

197, 200 (2d Cir. 2004).

Irrespective of whether they are drafted

pro se, all complaints must plead sufficient facts to “state a
claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”

Bell Atl. Corp. v.

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1974, 167 L. Ed. 2d
929 (2007).

“A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff
6

pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 173 L. Ed.
2d 868 (2009) (citations omitted).

The plausibility standard

requires “more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted
unlawfully.” Id. at 678; accord Wilson v. Merrill Lynch & Co., 671
F.3d

120,

128

(2d

Cir.

2011).

While

“‘detailed

factual

allegations’” are not required, “[a] pleading that offers ‘labels
and conclusions’ or ‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of a
cause of action will not do.’”

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at

678 (quoting

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).
Further, a district court has the inherent power to
dismiss a case, sua sponte, if it determines that the action is
frivolous

or

the

court

lacks

jurisdiction

over

the

matter

regardless of whether a plaintiff has paid the filing fee.

FED. R.

CIV. P. 12(h)(3); Fitzgerald v. First E. Seventh St. Tenants Corp.,
221 F.3d 362, 363-364 (2d Cir. 2000).

“An action is frivolous if

it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact--i.e., where it is ‘based
on an indisputably meritless legal theory’ or presents ‘factual
contentions [which] are clearly baseless.’”

Scanlon v. Vermont,

423 F. App’x 78, 79 (2d Cir. 2011) (summary order) (quoting Neitzke
v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327, 109 S. Ct. 1827, 1832, 104 L. Ed.
2d 338 (1989) (alteration in original)); see

also

Denton v.

Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33, 112 S. Ct. 1728, 118 L. Ed. 2d 340
7

(1992) (“[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.”).
In addition, Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure provides, in relevant part, that a complaint “must
contain: . . . a short and plain statement of the claim showing
that the pleader is entitled to relief.”

FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2).

Essentially, Rule 8 ensures that a complaint provides a defendant
with sufficient notice of the claims against it.
P. 8; Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.

See FED. R. CIV.

“When a complaint fails to comply

with these requirements [contained in Rule 8], the district court
has the power, on motion or sua sponte, to dismiss the complaint or
to strike such parts as are redundant or immaterial.

Simmons v.

Abruzzo, 49 F.3d 83, 86 (2d Cir. 1995) (citing Salahuddin v. Cuomo,
861 F.2d 40, 42 (2d Cir. 1988)).
Here, as is readily apparent, the Complaint is nothing
more

than

Plaintiff’s

cognizable claim.

delusions

and

does

not

set

forth

any

Given that Plaintiff has filed a frivolous

Complaint,4 it is sua sponte DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
4

Baron v.

Plaintiff is cautioned that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11
applies to pro se litigants, Ginther v. Provident Life & Cas.
Ins. Co., 350 F. App’x 494, 496 (2d Cir. 2009) (upholding a
district court’s imposition of sanctions against a pro se
litigant), and that should she file another frivolous Complaint,
it is within the Court’s realm to consider sanctions. See FED.
R. CIV. P. 11.
8

Complete

Management,

Inc.,

260

F.

App’x

399

(2d

Cir.

2008)

(“[D]ismissal is appropriate where, as here, a complaint is a
‘labyrinthian prolixity of unrelated and vituperative charges that
def[y] comprehension.’”) (quoting Prezzi v. Schelter, 469 F.2d 691,
692 (2d Cir. 1972) (second alteration in original) (per curiam)).
II.

Leave to Amend
Rule 15(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

provides that a party shall be given leave to amend “when justice
so requires.”

FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a)(2).

“[W]hen addressing a pro

se complaint, a district ‘court should not dismiss without granting
leave to amend at least once when a liberal reading of the
complaint
stated.’”

gives

any

indication

that

a

valid

claim

might

be

Thompson v. Carter, 284 F.3d 411, 416 (2d Cir. 2002)

(quoting Branum v. Clark, 927 F.2d 698, 705 (2d Cir. 1991)).
Nevertheless,

“[l]eave

to

amend,

though

liberally

granted, may properly be denied for: ‘undue delay, bad faith or
dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure
deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to
the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment,
futility of amendment, etc.’”

Ruotolo v. City of New York, 514

F.3d 184, 191 (2d Cir. 2008) (quoting Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178,
182, 83 S. Ct. 227, 230, 9 L. Ed. 2d 222 (1962)).

“If the

underlying facts or circumstances relied upon by a plaintiff may be
a proper subject of relief, he ought to be afforded an opportunity
9

to test his claim on the merits.”

Foman, 371 U.S. at 182.

However, if amendment would be futile, i.e., if it could not
withstand a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), leave to
amend may be denied.

See Lucente v. Int’l Bus. Mach. Corp., 310

F.3d 243, 258 (2d Cir. 2002).
Construing

the

Plaintiff’s

Complaint

liberally,

and

interpreting it as raising the strongest arguments it suggests,
Burgos v. Hopkins, 14 F.3d 787, 790 (2d Cir. 1994), the Court finds
that Plaintiff’s allegations rise to the level of the irrational.
Accordingly, the Court declines to afford Plaintiff an opportunity
to amend her Complaint given that the deficiencies therein are not
such that could be cured by amending the Complaint.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff’s Complaint is
sua sponte DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to state a
plausible claim.

Although Plaintiff paid the fee to commence this

action, should she seek leave to appeal in forma pauperis, 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. See
Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45, 82 S. Ct. 917, 8
L. Ed. 2d 21 (1962).

10

The Clerk of the Court is further directed to mail a copy
of this Memorandum and Order to the pro se Plaintiff.

SO ORDERED.
/s/ JOANNA SEYBERT
Joanna Seybert, U.S.D.J.
Dated: April
11 , 2014
Central Islip, New York

11