Andrews v. Rowland et al
Filing
7
DECISION AND ORDER dismissing Pltf's 6 Amended Complaint. Signed by Senior Judge Thomas J. McAvoy on 11/9/11. [Served by certified mail.](sfp, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------------------------------VERNON H. ANDREWS,
Plaintiff,
v.
Civ. Action No.
3:11-CV-1151 (TJM/DEP)
DENNIS AND DEBRAH ROWLAND,
JACK GOLDBERG, and BOB DE STEFANO,
Defendants.
-----------------------------------------------------------APPEARANCES:
VERNON H. ANDREWS
Plaintiff, pro se
THOMAS J. McAVOY
SENIOR U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
DECISION AND ORDER
Pro se Plaintiff Vernon H. Andrews commenced this action on September 27, 2011
by the filing of a form civil rights complaint, along with an application to proceed in forma
pauperis (“IFP”). By Decision and Order, dated October 17, 2011, Dkt. No. 5, the Court
granted Plaintiff permission to proceed IFP, but dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint with leave
to replead. Presently before the Court for review is Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint.
As noted in the Court’s previous Decision and Order, the basis for Plaintiff’s claim
was not clear from the sparse allegations in his Complaint, and the attachments thereto
provided little elucidation. From that pleading it appeared that the Defendants formerly
employed the Plaintiff and that he claims that Defendants violated his rights by
1
overworking him. See generally Complaint (Dkt. No. 1). As relief in his Complaint,
Plaintiff seeks “2 million to each person.” Upon conducting the required review under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e),1 the Court concluded that, even when liberally construed, the Complaint
did not allege a discernible cause of action. Accordingly, the Court found that dismissal of
the Complaint was required under Section 1915(e) on the grounds that Plaintiff had failed
to state a cause of action which was plausible on its face and that his claims were
frivolous. Dkt. No. 5.
Unfortunately, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint suffers from the same fatal
deficiencies as his original pleading. In his most recent filing, Plaintiff seems to have
changed his allegations to a limited extent. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint still asserts that
he was overworked by Defendants, dating back to 1994, and apparently as a result
became mentally ill, and also demands $2 million in damages. See generally Amended
Complaint (Dkt. No. 6). That pleading, unlike his original filing, also demands, “would you
please get me to stop working for them. I cannot do it. I have been going to Alcoholics
Anonymous every day because of this ‘I hope it helps’ since 1997", and “work at home
from now on. law if you get sick at work they cannot fire you. They all made me sick at
work!” Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 6) pp. 3-4. The basis for Plaintiff’s claims remains
indiscernible. As a result, for the reasons set forth in its previous Decision and Order, the
1
Section 1915(e) directs that, when a plaintiff seeks to proceed in forma pauperis,
(2) . . . the 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).
2
Court has concluded that the Amended Complaint must be dismissed.
WHEREFORE, it is hereby
ORDERED, that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is dismissed without prejudice;
ORDERED, that the Clerk serve a copy of this Order on the Plaintiff by regular mail.
Dated:November 9, 2011
3
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?