Hall v. Sagamore P.C. et al

Filing 8

MEMORANDUM & ORDER granting 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. SO ORDERED that plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis is granted and the Complaint is sua sponte dismissed with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) unless plaintiff files an amended complaint as set forth above within thirty (30) days from the date of the entry of this order. If plaintiff does not file an amended complaint within the time allowed, his Complaint shall be dismis sed with prejudice and the case shall be closed. If plaintiff files an amended complaint, the Court will review it pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The Clerk of the Court shall, pursuant to Rule 77(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, ser ve notice of entry of this Order upon plaintiff in accordance with Rule 5(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.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. CM to pro se plaintiff. Ordered by Judge Sandra J. Feuerstein on 4/14/2015. (Florio, Lisa)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-----------------------------------------------------X
TRAVIS LEE HALL,

FILED 
CLERK 

4/14/2015 4:02 pm

U.S. DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 
LONG ISLAND OFFICE 

Plaintiff,
-against-

MEMORANDUM & ORDER
15-CV-00562 (SJF)(ARL)

SAGAMORE P.C., KINGS PARK P.C.,
M.H.F.P.C., P.P.C.,
Defendants.
-----------------------------------------------------X
FEUERSTEIN, District Judge:
On January 26, 2015, pro se plaintiff Travis Lee Hall (“plaintiff”) filed a complaint
against Sagamore P.C., Kings Park P.C., “M.H.F.P.C.” and “P.P.C.” (collectively, “defendants”)
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Section 1983”) [Docket Entry No. 1 (“Complaint” or “Compl.”)],
accompanied by an application to proceed in forma pauperis. [Docket Entry No. 2].
Upon review of the declaration in support of the application to proceed in forma
pauperis, the Court finds that plaintiff’s financial status qualifies him to commence this action
without prepayment of the filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a); 1915(a)(1). Therefore,
plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. However, for the reasons that follow,
plaintiff’s Complaint is sua sponte dismissed for failure to state a claim for relief under 28
U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
I.

1

Background 1

All material allegations in the complaint are assumed to be true for the purposes of this Order. See,
e.g., Rogers v. City of Troy, New York, 148 F.3d 52, 58 (2d Cir. 1998) (in reviewing a pro se complaint for
sua sponte dismissal, a court is required to accept the material allegations in the complaint as true).

Plaintiff’s Complaint is submitted on the Court’s Section 1983 complaint form. In its
entirety, plaintiff’s statement of claim alleges: 2
I was in Sagamore from June 15, 1988 to Sep. 20, 1991. Went to
Kings Park P.C. May or June of 1997. I went to M.H.F.P.C. for 13
months the July of 1998 then I went to P.P.C. for a little while then
in Dec. of 1998 I was arested [sic] for arson [indecipherable] to
M.H.F.P.C. from 1998 to 2008 Sep 18 of 08 I was in left M.H.F.P.C.
and went to P.P.C. from 2008 to 2012 when I was arrested [sic]
again for arson which I came back to M.H.F.P.C. on March 27, 2012
it is now 2015 Jan 21.
Compl. ¶ IV. Plaintiff has left blank the space on the form complaint that calls for a description
of any claimed injuries. Id. ¶ IV.A. For relief, plaintiff states “I will like 10 Million but if I
could go to rochester I will take 5 Million that it!!!” Id. ¶ V.
II.

Discussion
A.

In Forma Pauperis Application

Upon review of plaintiff’s declaration in support of his application to proceed in forma
pauperis, the Court finds that plaintiff’s financial status qualifies him to commence this action
without prepayment of the filing fees. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Therefore, plaintiff’s request
to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.
B.

Application of 28 U.S.C. § 1915

Under the in forma pauperis statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), a district court must
dismiss a complaint if it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.
It is axiomatic that district courts are required to read pro se complaints liberally
(Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 167 L. Ed. 2d 1081 (2007) (quoting

2

Excerpts from plaintiff’s Complaint are reproduced here exactly as they appear in the Complaint.
2

Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106, 97 S. Ct. 285, 50 L. Ed. 2d 251 (1976)); Hogan v. Fischer,
738 F.3d 509, 515 (2d Cir. 2013)), and to construe them “to raise the strongest arguments that
they suggest.” Gerstenbluth v. Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, 728 F.3d 139, 142-43 (2d
Cir. 2013) (quotations and citations omitted). Moreover, at the pleadings stage of the
proceeding, the Court must assume the truth of “all well-pleaded, nonconclusory factual
allegations in the complaint.” Harrington v. Cnty. of Suffolk, 607 F.3d 31, 33 (2d Cir. 2010); see
also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (2009).
Nevertheless, a complaint 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). The pleading of specific facts is not required; rather a complaint need only give the
defendant “fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Erickson,
551 U.S. 89, 127 S. Ct. 2197 (quotations and citation omitted); see also Anderson News, LLC v.
American Media, Inc., 680 F.3d 162, 182 (2d Cir. 2012), cert. denied by Curtis Circulation Co.
v. Anderson News, LLC, --- U.S. ----, 133 S. Ct. 846, 184 L. Ed. 2d 655 (2013) (accord). “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, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at
555, 127 S. Ct. 1955). “Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders ‘naked assertion[s]’ devoid of
‘further factual enhancement.’” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557, 127 S. Ct. 1955); see
also Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. ex rel. St. Vincent Catholic Medical Centers Retirement
Plan v. Morgan Stanley Investment Management Inc., 712 F.3d 705, 717 (2d Cir. 2013) (accord).
The plausibility standard requires “more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted
unlawfully.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S. Ct. 1937; see also In re Amaranth Natural Gas
Commodities Litig., 730 F.3d 170, 180 (2d Cir. 2013).
3

Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[a] pleading that states a
claim for relief must contain: (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. Plaintiff’s submission does
not conform to the requirements of Rule 8 as it does not contain “a short and plain statement of
the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction” (id.) or a “short and plain statement of the claim showing
that [plaintiff] is entitled to relief” (id.), but merely provides facts regarding plaintiff’s arrests
and requests “10 million” or “5 million” if “[plaintiff] could go to Rochester.” Compl. ¶ V.
Accordingly, plaintiff’s Complaint is dismissed unless he files an amended complaint in
accordance with this order within thirty (30) days from the date of the entry of this order.
The amended complaint must be captioned as an “Amended Complaint” and bear the same
docket number as this order. If plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint within the time
allowed, his Complaint shall be dismissed with prejudice and the case shall be closed. If plaintiff
does file an amended complaint, the Court will review it pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
III.

Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is

granted and the Complaint is sua sponte dismissed with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) unless plaintiff files an amended complaint as set forth above within thirty
(30) days from the date of the entry of this order. If plaintiff does not file an amended
complaint within the time allowed, his Complaint shall be dismissed with prejudice and the case
shall be closed. If plaintiff files an amended complaint, the Court will review it pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915. The Clerk of the Court shall, pursuant to Rule 77(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of

4

Civil Procedure, serve notice of entry of this Order upon plaintiff in accordance with Rule 5(b)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
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).

SO ORDERED.
s/ Sandra J. Feuerstein_____
Sandra J. Feuerstein
United States District Judge

Dated:

April 14, 2015
Central Islip, New York

5