Williams v. Spota et al
Filing
11
MEMORANDUM & ORDER granting 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED and the claims that are set forth in the Complaint are sua sponte DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), 1915A(b)(1). Given the dismissal of the Complaint, Plaintiff's request for injunctive relief is DENIED. However, upon conclusion of the underlying criminal prosec ution Plaintiff may seek LEAVE TO AMEND his Complaint in writing within two (2) weeks of the conclusion of the state court criminal prosecution if so warranted at that time. 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. The Clerk of the Court is directed to CLOSE this case and to mail a copy of this Order to the pro se Plaintiff. So Ordered by Judge Joanna Seybert on 1/7/2016. C/M (Valle, Christine)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------X
STOKER OLUKOTUN WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
15-CV-5468(JS)(ARL)
-againstDISTRICT ATTORNEY THOMAS
SPOTA and SUFFOLK COUNTY,
as a municipality,
Defendants.
----------------------------------X
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff:
Stoker Olukoton Williams, pro se
494733
Suffolk County Correctional Facility
110 Center Drive
Riverhead, New York 11901
For Defendants:
No appearances.
SEYBERT, District Judge:
Incarcerated pro se plaintiff Stoker Olukotun Williams
(“Plaintiff”), filed an in forma pauperis Complaint in this Court
on
September
16,
2015
pursuant
to
42
U.S.C.
§
1983
against
Suffolk County District Attorney Thomas Spota (“DA Spota”) and
Suffolk County (together, “Defendants”).
Plaintiff did not file
the required Prisoner Litigation Reform Act authorization form
(“PLRA”)
with
his
Complaint.
Accordingly,
by
Notice
of
Deficiency (“Notice”) dated September 25, 2015, Court instructed
Plaintiff to sign and return the enclosed PLRA within fourteen
(14) days in order to proceed with his case.
On October 21,
2015, Plaintiff filed the PLRA together with an Order to Show
Cause
seeking
requesting
a
Preliminary
that
his
Injunction
underlying
and
criminal
Restraining
Order
prosecution
be
transferred from Suffolk County to the Bronx or Brooklyn. (See
Docket Entry 7.)
Albeit untimely filed, the Court accepts the PLRA.
Upon review of the declaration in support of the application to
proceed in forma pauperis, the Court finds that Plaintiff is
qualified
to
filing fee.
commence
this
action
without
prepayment
See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a); 1915(a)(1).
of
the
Therefore,
Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED.
However, for the reasons that follow, the claims that are set
forth in the Complaint are sua sponte DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), 1915A(b)(1).
the
dismissal
of
the
Complaint,
Plaintiff’s
request
Given
for
injunctive relief is DENIED.
BACKGROUND1
Plaintiff’s brief, handwritten Complaint alleges the
following it its entirety:
Head DA Thomas Spota has defamed my character
and taken part in malicious prosecution. His
inflammatory statements have defamed my
character and poisoned the minds of potential
future jurors. I just found out that Spota
1
The following facts are taken from Plaintiff’s Complaint and
are presumed to be true for the purposes of this Memorandum and
Order.
2
had a press conference in 2013 and stated “I
can’t believe I shot that bitch for nothing.”
He said that I said that. That is a blatant
lie.
(Compl. ¶ IV.)
As a result of the foregoing, Plaintiff seeks to
recover “$10 million from Thomas Spota and [for] my trial [to be]
moved
to
a
venue
outside
of
Long
Island”
because
“it
is
impossible for me to have a fair trial in Suffolk County or Long
Island . . . .”
(Compl. ¶ V.)
DISCUSSION
I.
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
is
qualified
to
prepayment of the filing fees.
commence
this
action
without
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1).
Therefore, Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is
GRANTED.
II.
Application of 28 U.S.C. § 1915
Section 1915 of Title 28 requires a district court to
dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint if the action is frivolous
or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is
immune from such relief.
1915A(b).
See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)i)-(iii),
The Court is required to dismiss the action as soon as
it makes such a determination.
See id. § 1915A(b).
3
Courts are obliged to construe the pleadings of a pro
se
plaintiff
liberally.
See
Defendant,
537
F.3d
185,
191
McGuinnis,
357
F.3d
197,
200
Sealed
(2d
(2d
Cir.
Cir.
Plaintiff
2008);
2004).
v.
Sealed
McEachin
v.
However,
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).
“A
claim
has
facial
plausibility
when
the
plaintiff
pleads
factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
inference
that
alleged.”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S. Ct. 1937,
1949,
173
L.
the
Ed.
defendant
2d
868
is
(2009)
liable
for
(citations
the
misconduct
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, 129 S. Ct. at 1949 (quoting Twombly, 550
U.S. at 555, 127 S. Ct. at 1964-65).
III. The Younger Abstention Doctrine
Federal courts ordinarily must abstain from exercising
jurisdiction over constitutional claims seeking declaratory or
4
injunctive relief when: “1) there is an ongoing state proceeding;
2) an important state interest is implicated in that proceeding;
and 3) the state proceeding affords the federal plaintiff an
adequate
opportunity
constitutional claims.”
for
judicial
review
of
the
federal
Diamond “D” Constr. Corp. v. McGowan,
282 F.3d 191, 198 (2d Cir. 2002); see also Younger v. Harris, 401
U.S. 37, 91 S. Ct. 746, 27 L. Ed. 2d 669 (1971); Hansel v. Town
Ct. for the Town of Springfield, N.Y., 56 F.3d 391, 393 (2d Cir.
1995).
In Sprint Commc’ns, Inc. v. Jacobs, 134 S. Ct. 584,
591–92, 187 L. Ed. 2d 505 (2013), “the Supreme Court rejected
this three-part test in favor of a categorical approach.”
Mir v.
Shah, 569 F. App’x 48, 50 (2d Cir. 2014) (summary order).
Instead, the Supreme Court held that the Younger doctrine applies
only to three classes of state court proceedings: 1) “state
criminal prosecutions”; (2) “civil enforcement proceedings”; and
(3)
civil
proceedings
that
“implicate
a
State’s
interest
in
enforcing the orders and judgments of its courts.” Sprint, 134 S.
Ct. at 588 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see
id. at 591 (“We have not applied Younger outside these three
‘exceptional’ categories, and today hold . . . that they define
Younger’s scope.”).
Here, Plaintiff seeks, inter alia, injunctive relief
5
concerning the location of his on-going criminal prosecution.
is
readily
apparent
under
the
Supreme
Court’s
As
categorical
approach, this Court must abstain from considering Plaintiff’s
Section
1983
claims
under
the
Younger
abstention
doctrine.
Moreover, Plaintiff merely speculates that he cannot receive a
fair trial based on the statements to the press allegedly made by
DA Spota.
Because “we do not know, nor can the parties now
illuminate, whether an impartial jury may be selected[,]” Martin
v.
Merola,
532
F.2d
191,
194
(2d
Cir.
1976)
Plaintiff’s Constitutional claims are premature.
the
state
prosecutions
have
been
concluded,
(per
curiam),
See id. (“Until
it
is
simply
impossible to make any reasoned evaluation of plaintiffs’ claim
that they have been deprived of the opportunity to secure a fair
trial . . . Such a claim requires more than the mere speculation
of damages . . .; it requires a showing that plaintiffs have in
fact
been
denied
their
due
process
rights.”).
Accordingly,
Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to
28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), 1915A(b)(1).
Given the dismissal
of the Complaint, Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief is
DENIED.
IV.
Leave to Amend
The
Second
Circuit
instructs
that
a
district
court
should not dismiss a pro se complaint without granting leave to
6
amend at least once “when a liberal reading of the complaint
gives any indication that a valid claim might be stated.”
v.
Chappius,
618
F.3d
162,
170
(2d
Cir.
2010).
Chavis
Here,
as
explained above, because Plaintiff’s underlying state criminal
prosecution is on-going, his Constitutional claims are premature.
Upon conclusion of the underlying criminal prosecution Plaintiff
may seek LEAVE TO AMEND his Complaint in writing within two (2)
weeks of the conclusion of the state court criminal prosecution
if so warranted at that time.
CONCLUSION
For
the
reasons
application to proceed in
claims
that
DISMISSED
are
set
WITHOUT
forth
set
forma
in
forth
pauperis
the
PREJUDICE
§§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), 1915A(b)(1).
above,
is GRANTED and the
Complaint
pursuant
Plaintiff’s
are
to
sua
28
sponte
U.S.C.
Given the dismissal of the
Complaint, Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief is DENIED.
However, upon conclusion of the underlying criminal prosecution
Plaintiff may seek LEAVE TO AMEND his Complaint in writing within
two (2) weeks of the conclusion of the state court criminal
prosecution if so warranted at that time.
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
7
of any appeal.
See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-
45, 82 S. Ct. 917, 8 L. Ed. 2d 21 (1962).
The Clerk of the Court is directed to CLOSE this case
and to mail a copy of this Order to the pro se Plaintiff.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ JOANNA SEYBERT
JOANNA SEYBERT, U.S.D.J.
Dated:
January
7 , 2016
Central Islip, New York
8
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?