Glass v. Sanchez et al

Filing 8

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 but the Amended Complaint is sua sponte DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE fo r failure to state a plausible claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(ii). 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 mail a copy of this Order to the pro se Plaintiff at her last known address. So Ordered by Judge Joanna Seybert on 10/12/2017. C/M (Valle, Christine)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------X
GOD’S CHILD KAREN ELIZABETH GLASS,
Plaintiff,
-against-

MEMORANDUM & ORDER
17-CV-3141(JS)(AYS)

UNITED STATES PRESIDENTS since 1960;
UNITED STATES SOCIAL SECURITY since
1971; UNITED STATES SOCIAL SERVICES,
SOCIAL SERVICES SOCIAL WORKERS since
1972; DR. NEIL BELLIN; UNITED STATES,
FAMILY COURT, Unit 41675, 41675A;
CRIMINAL COURT, Hempstead, NY 11550;
JUDGE RICHARD LAWRENCE; and CARL
and SHEILA PEARSON,
Defendants.
-------------------------------------X
APPEARANCES
For Plaintiff:
Karen E. Glass, pro se
P.O. Box 1761
Baldwin, NY 11510
For Defendants:

No appearances.

SEYBERT, District Judge:
On May 11, 2017, pro se plaintiff Karen Elizabeth Glass
(“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint in this Court pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 (“Section 1983”) on the Court’s Civil Rights Complaint Form
against Robert Sanchez, New York State Social Services, Nassau
County; the New York State Family Court, “the whole New York State
Since 1972”, Laurie Kenna, Sheila Green, Paula Miami, Mrs. Denny,
Carol Swain, and Judge Richard Lawrence.

The Complaint was

accompanied by an application to proceed in forma pauperis.
Docket Entries 1-2.)

(See

On June 5, 2017, Plaintiff filed an Amended

Complaint on the Court’s form for “Complaint for Civil Case

Alleging Negligence (28 U.S.C. § 1332; Diversity of Citizenship)”
and listed as defendants: United States Presidents since 1960;
United States Social Security since 1971; United States Social
Services, Social Services Social Workers since 1972; Dr. Neil
Bellin; the United States, Family Court, Unit 41675, 41675A;
Criminal Court, Hempstead, NY 11550; Judge Richard Lawrence, and
Carl and Sheila Pearson (collectively, “Defendants”).

(See Am.

Compl., Docket Entry 6.)
Upon

review

of

the

declaration

in

support

of

the

application to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court finds that
Plaintiff is qualified to commence this action without prepayment
of the filing fee.

See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1).

Therefore,

Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED.
However, for the reasons that follow, the Complaint is sua sponte
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)(ii).
BACKGROUND1
Plaintiff’s disjointed, incoherent, handwritten Amended
Complaint, begins:
They steal from Karen Glass’s car hubcaps or books. They
have lock pick keys. Summonse or supeona them to court,
if Nassau County did not give a damn since 11-10-97 when
Laura + Joseph Gitto lived there and might of adopted my
son Daniel in the wrong Kingdom or Bryan Glass did. Bryan
1

Excerpts from the Amended Complaint are reproduced here exactly
as they appear in the original. Errors in spelling, punctuation,
and grammar have not been corrected or noted.
2

Glass was jealous of Daniel?
Order of Protection necessary executed and enforced
today. Against Hell’s Angel Gangs for Karen E. Glass and
family that cared about children that gave a damn about
people. God’s Karen E. Glass’s civil rights terminated
in 2001 by Family Court Westbury, New York 11590. No job
was given since 9-21-2001 after Pathmark rejected, my
body. Too tall the reason. They were Hell’s Angel Gang
Members of Social Services.
460 Franklin Avenue,
Franklin Square, New York 11010 [phone] Diane
Archer Store manager. 4.0 Cashier Bookkeeper took money
out of my til. Karen E. Glass would like a job, a place
to live, housing and a boyfriend too.
I’m not the criminal or Daniel Hall 2-13-99 3 pm in
Correction Center East Meadow, New York soup kitchen? If
Judge Judy Shapiro executed a 4 year old, was that my
son?
(Am. Compl. at 3.)
In its entirety, the Statement of Claim alleges:
Hell’s Angel Gangs Judge Hart 1999 February 4th or
negligent Malverne or Lynbrook New York Police Dept.
Killed my family. My family is dead or Hell’s Angel Gang
members.
Give me death certificates necessary if my
mother is not my mother or sons are not my sons. Karen
Elizabeth Glass is mentally competent.
No drugs
necessary. Defamed, defrauded of a full time job.
On 1970 or 1972 at Malverne, New York 11565 . . . my
family may not be alive because of the President, Social
Security or Social Services in Nassau County, New York.
Since 1971, 1972, 1998, 1980, my sons are not my sons
because of Robert Sanchez, Mrs. Lopez, Laurie Kenna. No
housing was given or apartments in New York state since
9-1-97. No job given since 1980 or 2001. Full-time job.
They are negligent. No pictures were taken of Michael C.
Hall 3-23-98 1000 North Village Avenue Rockville Centre,
New York 11570 Mercy Medical Center, Virginia Renosh
lied. He had hazel eyes & dirty blonde hair, not blue
eyes. Born 3-22-98 12:16 pm at home. Not sleeping. Not
mentally ill. He was lactose intolerant. Not feeding
properly.
Hell’s Angel Gangs adopted him in wrong
kingdom.
3

(Am. Compl. at 5.)

For relief, Plaintiff alleges:

Damages since I was born 11-29-61 Overlook Hospital in
Summit, New Jersey, yellow Birth Certificate. My mother
always neglected me with sister and brothers. She never
gave a damn if I got married in a church, or got a job or
education or my own apartment like Pamela Margaret Glass
Irwin 7 Tower St. Hell’s Angel Gang Member Huntington
Station, New York 11746. She alway gave money, cars,
house to other 3 children. Please award civil damages,
compensatory damages, or reward for me for punitive
damages for 14 million or more if my family or sons are
not giving a damn after 11-14-97 or 3-27-98 3:30 p.m. No
job since 2001. No husband or boyfriends since 2008.
(Compl. at ¶ IV.)
I.

DISCUSSION

In Forma Pauperis Application
Upon review of Plaintiff’s declaration in support of the

application to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court finds that
Plaintiff is qualified 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.
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

1915A(b).

relief.

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).

Courts are obliged to construe the pleadings of a pro se
4

plaintiff liberally. See Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant, 537
F.3d 185, 191 (2d Cir. 2008); McEachin v. McGuinnis, 357 F.3d 197,
200 (2d Cir. 2004).

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 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., Inc., 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.’”
at

Iqbal, 556 U.S.

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.

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’
5

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
(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.
ambiguous,

vague

or

See FED. R. CIV.

A complaint that is “so confused,

otherwise

unintelligible

that

its

true

substance, if any, is well disguised,” fails to comply with Rule 8.
Salahuddin v. Cuomo, 861 F.2d 40, 42 (2d Cir. 1988); see Simmons v.
Abruzzo, 49 F.3d 83, 86 (2d Cir. 1995).

“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, 49 F.3d at 86 (citing Salahuddin, 861 F.2d at 42).
6

Here, as is readily apparent, the Amended Complaint is
nothing more than Plaintiff’s delusions, does not set forth any
cognizable claims, and falls far short of giving fair notice of her
claims as required under Rule 8(a)(2).

Given that Plaintiff has

filed a frivolous Amended Complaint, it is sua sponte DISMISSED
WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(ii).2
Baron v. Complete Mgmt., 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)).
III. Leave to Amend
Given the Second Circuit’s guidance that a pro se Complaint
should not be dismissed without leave to amend unless amendment
would be futile, Ashmore v. Prus, 510 F. App'x 47, 49 (2d Cir.
2013) (citing Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99, 112 (2d Cir. 2000)),
the Court has carefully considered whether leave to amend is
warranted here.

Rule 15(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil

2

The Court notes that, even if Plaintiff had set forth
cognizable Section 1983 and/or negligence claims, given that the
challenged conduct is alleged to have occurred during the years
1970, 1972, 1997, 1998 and 2001, Plaintiff’s claims are likely
time-barred. See N.Y. CPLR § 214(5); Paige-Bey v. City of N.Y.,
No. 13-CV-7300(SLT)(RER), 2016 WL 7217197, at *2 (E.D.N.Y.
Dec. 12, 2016) (citing Dory v. Ryan, 999 F.2d 679, 681 (2d Cir.
1993) (citing Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261 (1985)) (“The
statute of limitations for actions under § 1983 is the statute of
limitations applicable to personal injury actions occurring in
the state in which the federal court sits.”).
7

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 N.Y., 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 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 Amended Complaint liberally,
and interpreting it as raising the strongest arguments suggested,
8

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 further amend her Complaint given that the deficiencies therein
are not such that could be cured by amendment.

Thus, LEAVE TO FILE

A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT IS DENIED.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff’s application
to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED but the Amended Complaint
is sua sponte DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failure to state a
plausible claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(ii).
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).
The Clerk of the Court is directed to mail a copy of this
Order to the pro se Plaintiff at her last known address.

SO ORDERED.
/s/ JOANNA SEYBERT
Joanna Seybert, U.S.D.J.
Dated:

October
12 , 2017
Central Islip, New York

9