Incorvati v. CIS Ombudsman et al
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re 12 Report and Recommendations: The Court hereby ORDERS that Magistrate Judge Hummel's September 7, 2021 Report-Recommendation and Order is ADOPTED in its entirety for the reasons set forth herein; and the Court further ORDERS that Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 10) is DISMISSED with prejudice; and the Court further ORDERS that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment in Defendants' favor and cl ose this case; and the Court further ORDERS that the Clerk of the Court shall serve Plaintiff with a copy of this Memorandum-Decision and Order. Signed by U.S. District Judge Mae A. D'Agostino on 5/9/2022. (Copy served via regular and certified mail upon plaintiff)(ban)
Case 1:21-cv-00280-MAD-CFH Document 13 Filed 05/09/22 Page 1 of 5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
CIS OMBUDSMAN, et al.
328 Manning Boulevard
Albany, New York 12206
Plaintiff, pro se
Mae A. D'Agostino, U.S. District Judge:
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Jonathan Incorvati ("Plaintiff") initiated this action pro se on March 11, 2021.
Dkt. No. 1. In a Report-Recommendation and Order on September 7, 2021, Magistrate Judge
Hummel reviewed Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, recommended that it be dismissed in its
entirety with prejudice, and denied Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel. See Dkt. No.
12 at 7.
Currently before the Court is Magistrate Judge Hummel's Report-Recommendation and
Case 1:21-cv-00280-MAD-CFH Document 13 Filed 05/09/22 Page 2 of 5
In his original Complaint, filed on March 11, 2021, Plaintiff only named the CIS
Ombudsman as a defendant. See Dkt. No. 1. Although Plaintiff used a form intended for civil
rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, he did not specify any violations of the Constitution or
of federal or state law. See Dkt. No. 1. Plaintiff's Complaint was accompanied by a motion for a
preliminary injunction, which additionally named web programmer Nathaniel Stiefel, President
Joseph R. Biden, former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, and several officials of the
Houston Police Department, including an Officer Sanchez, an Officer Anders, and Huberto
Arturo as defendants. See Dkt. No. 3. On July 2, 2021, Magistrate Judge Christian Hummel
granted Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis and reviewed his Complaint. See Dkt.
No. 6. After conducting this review, Magistrate Judge Hummel recommended dismissal of
Plaintiff's Complaint with leave to amend and denial of Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary
injunction. See Dkt. No. 6 at 10-11. Plaintiff objected to the Report-Recommendation and
Order on July 12, 2021. Dkt. No. 8. In addition, Plaintiff moved for appointment of counsel.
Dkt. No. 7. This Court adopted Magistrate Judge Hummel's Report and Recommendation in full
on August 5, 2021. Dkt. No. 9.
Plaintiff then filed an Amended Complaint on August 16, 2021, consisting of: (1)
Plaintiff's original § 1983 form filed on March 11, 2021; (2) two copies of Plaintiff's objections
to Magistrate Judge Hummel's Report-Recommendation of July 2, 2021; (3) a brief handwritten
note at the bottom of the first copy of those objections citing 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 1801; and (4)
several other documents, including a Texas identification card. See Dkt. No. 10. On September
7, 2021, Magistrate Judge Hummel recommended dismissing Plaintiff's Amended Complaint
with prejudice and denying Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel, noting that Plaintiff's
amended complaint was "confused, ambiguous, vague or otherwise unintelligible" such that it
Case 1:21-cv-00280-MAD-CFH Document 13 Filed 05/09/22 Page 3 of 5
failed to state any plausible claims for relief. Dkt. No. 12 at 4-5, 7 (quoting Salahuddin v.
Cuomo, 861 F.2d 40, 42 (2d Cir. 1988)). That Report-Recommendation and Order is now before
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), when a plaintiff proceeds in forma pauperis, a court
"shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that -- . . . (B) the action . . . (i) is
frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks
monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief." 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B). Since Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court must review his pleadings under a
more lenient standard than that applied to "formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Govan v.
Campbell, 289 F. Supp. 2d 289, 295 (N.D.N.Y. 2003) (quoting Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519,
520 (1972)). As the Second Circuit has held, courts are required to "make reasonable allowances
to protect pro se litigants" from inadvertently forfeiting legal rights because of their lack of
formal legal training. Id. (quoting Traguth v. Zuck, 710 F.2d 90, 95 (2d Cir. 1983)).
In reviewing a complaint under Section 1915(e), the court may also consider relevant
portions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Under Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, 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). This Rule is intended to "'give fair notice of
the claim being asserted so as to permit the adverse party the opportunity to file a responsive
answer [and] prepare an adequate defense.'" Hudson v. Artuz, No. 95 CIV. 4768, 1998 WL
832708, *1 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 30, 1998) (quoting Powell v. Marine Midland Bank, 162 F.R.D. 15,
16 (N.D.N.Y. 1995)) (other citations omitted). Dismissal is not appropriate so long as the
plaintiff has stated "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl.
Case 1:21-cv-00280-MAD-CFH Document 13 Filed 05/09/22 Page 4 of 5
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (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 (2009). Although the
court should construe the factual allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, "the tenet
that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to
legal conclusions." Id. "Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by
mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).
Having carefully reviewed the September 7, 2021 Report-Recommendation and Order
and the applicable law, the Court finds that Magistrate Judge Hummel correctly determined that
Plaintiff's Amended Complaint must be dismissed in its entirety. Although Plaintiff has been
furnished an opportunity to amend his complaint, the Amended Complaint remains in large part
illegible and nonsensical. See Dkt. No. 10. For example, while Plaintiff makes passing
reference to federal statutes involving conspiracy to defraud the United States and video
voyeurism, he does not provide any facts or state any claims related to these statutes, let alone
the "plausible" claims required by Twombly. Likewise, although Plaintiff names several
Defendants in his Amended Complaint, he still does not make clear how they violated either
Plaintiff's constitutional rights or any federal statute. See Dkt. No. 10 at 1. Plaintiff instead
asserts that they must "defend themselves in place of a 'Better Pleading.'" Id.at 1. Plaintiff's pro
se status does not excuse him from meeting the threshold pleading standards set forth in Fed. R.
Civ. P. 8. Here, where the complaint is confusing, ambiguous, and at times incoherent, the
complaint presents "far too heavy a burden in terms of defendants' duty to shape a
comprehensive defense and provides no meaningful basis for the Court to assess the sufficiency
of the[ ] claims." Gonzales v. Wing, 167 F.R.D. 352, 355 (N.D.N.Y. 1996).
Case 1:21-cv-00280-MAD-CFH Document 13 Filed 05/09/22 Page 5 of 5
Further although pro se litigants should ordinarily be granted leave to amend at least once
"when a liberal reading of the complaint gives any indication that a valid claim might be stated,"
this Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Hummel that, having been given that opportunity,
Plaintiff has failed to cure the faults in his original complaint, and any further opportunities to
amend would be futile. Branum v. Clark, 927 F.2d 698, 704-05 (2d Cir. 1991). The Court
therefore adopts Magistrate Judge Hummel's recommendation that Plaintiff's Amended
Complaint be dismissed in full with prejudice and without opportunity to amend.
After carefully considering Magistrate Judge Hummel's Report-Recommendation and
Order and the applicable law, and for the reasons stated herein, the Court hereby
ORDERS that Magistrate Judge Hummel's September 7, 2021 Report-Recommendation
and Order is ADOPTED in its entirety for the reasons set forth herein; and the Court further
ORDERS that Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 10) is DISMISSED with
prejudice; and the Court further
ORDERS that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment in Defendants' favor and close
this case; and the Court further
ORDERS that the Clerk of the Court shall serve Plaintiff with a copy of this
Memorandum-Decision and Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 9, 2022
Albany, New York
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?