Charles v. Postupack et al

Filing 42

MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER. ORDERED that decision on defendants motions to dismiss is STAYED. ORDERED that Burfeindt is granted leave to file an amended complaint, in full compliance with the terms of this order, within 30 days from the date of th e filing of this order. ORDERED that defendants will have 14 days from the docketing of Burfeindt's amended complaint to renew or supplement their motions as they see fit. ORDERED that if Burfeindt fails to file an amended complaint within 30 days, the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment dismissing this action with prejudice and without further order. Amended Complaint due by 12/15/2010. Signed by Judge Gary L. Sharpe on 11/16/10. (ban)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK _________________________________ JEFFREY CHARLES BURFEINDT, Plaintiff, v. NINA POSTUPACK; HUDSON VALLEY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION; GERALD C. ROTH, ESQ.; MARK A. KROHN, ESQ.; and STATE OF NEW YORK, a/k/a SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Defendants. _________________________________ APPEARANCES: OF COUNSEL: FOR THE PLAINTIFF: Jeffrey Charles Burfeindt Pro Se Postal Department 771 Stone Ridge, NY 12484 74 Pancake Hollow Road Highland, NY 12528 FOR THE DEFENDANTS: Nina Postupack Bailey, Kelleher Law Firm Pine West Plaza 5, Suite 507 Washington Avenue Extension Albany, NY 12205 JOHN W. BAILEY, ESQ. 1:10-cv-123 (GLS\RFT)

Hudson Valley Federal Credit Union and Gerald C. Roth, Esq. Stein, Wiener & Roth, LLP 1 Old Country Road, Suite 113 Carle Place, NY 11514 Mark A. Krohn, Esq. Carter, Conboy Law Firm 20 Corporate Woods Boulevard Albany, NY 12211 State of New York HON. ANDREW M. CUOMO New York State Attorney General 615 Erie Boulevard West Suite 102 Syracuse, NY 13204-2455 Gary L. Sharpe District Court Judge

PRANALI DATTA, ESQ.

MICHAEL J. MURPHY, ESQ.

JUSTIN C. LEVIN Assistant Attorney General

MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER Pro se plaintiff Jeffrey Charles Burfeindt brought suit against defendants, alleging violations of his constitutional rights in connection with a foreclosure proceeding commenced against him. (See Compl., Dkt. No. 1.) Pending are defendants' motions to dismiss. (Dkt. Nos. 8, 10, 12, 15). For the reasons that follow, decision on the motions is stayed and Burfeindt is granted leave to amend his complaint. "A pleading that states a claim for relief must contain ... a short and
2

plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2). "Each allegation must be simple, concise, and direct," FED. R. CIV. P. 8(d)(1), and "[a] party must state its claims or defenses in numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances," FED. R. CIV. P. 10 (b). The purpose of these rules "is to give fair notice of the claim asserted." Simmons v. Abruzzo, 49 F.3d 83, 86 (2d Cir. 1995) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). "When a complaint fails to comply with these requirements, 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." Id. However, dismissal "is usually reserved for those cases in which the complaint is so confused, ambiguous, vague, or otherwise unintelligible that its true substance, if any, is well disguised." Salahuddin v. Cuomo, 861 F.2d 40, 42 (2d Cir. 1988). This is just such a case. Stated generously, Burfeindt's sixty-eight page complaint is convoluted, vague, and unintelligible. It contains unnumbered paragraphs, discusses a variety of topics, includes a "memorandum of law," (see Compl. at 6, Dkt. No. 1), and at least one section that begins "Ordered Adjudged and Decreed," as though it were a court order, (see id. at 29). In
3

addition, the complaint quotes full cases from other jurisdictions, and discusses, among other things, changing currency, credit loans, void contracts, definitions of banking terms, and goldsmiths, relating none coherently to whatever claims it may be attempting to assert. (See id. at 12, 21, 23-24, 28-33, 34, 46-47.) Glaringly absent from this confused mess are any specific discernable allegations of wrongdoing against any of the defendants. Thus, dismissal of Burfeindt's complaint is clearly warranted under Rules 8 and 10. However, because a court must "normally grant leave to file an amended pleading" under such circumstances, see Salahuddin, 861 F.2d at 42, the court stays decision on defendants' motions and grants Burfeindt leave to amend his complaint to comply with Rules 8 and 10 within thirty (30) days from the date of the filing of this Order. Upon the docketing of the amended complaint, defendants will have fourteen (14) days to renew and supplement their motions as they see fit. However, should Burfeindt fail to file an amended complaint within the prescribed time, Burfeindt's action will be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE without further order of the court. WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that decision on defendants' motions to dismiss (Dkt.
4

Nos. 8, 10, 12, 15) is STAYED; and it is further ORDERED that Burfeindt is granted leave to file an amended complaint, in full compliance with the terms of this Order, within thirty (30) days from the date of the filing of this Order; and it is further ORDERED that defendants will have fourteen (14) days from the docketing of Burfeindt's amended complaint to renew and supplement their motions as they see fit; and it is further ORDERED that if Burfeindt fails to file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days from the date of the filing of this Order, the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment dismissing this action WITH PREJUDICE and without further order of the court; and it is further ORDERED that the Clerk provide a copy of this MemorandumDecision and Order to the parties by regular and certified mail. IT IS SO ORDERED. November 16, 2010 Albany, New York

5