Roulhac et al v. Kenyan et al

Filing 27

DECISION AND ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re 22 Report and Recommendations: The Court hereby ORDERS that Magistrate Judge Treece's August 24, 2015 Report-Recommendation and Order is ADOPTED in its entirety for the reasons set for th therein; and the Court further ORDERS that Plaintiffs' request in the complaint for class certification is DENIED; and the Court further ORDERS that Plaintiffs' complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice and with leave to re-file individua l civil actions; and the Court furtherORDERS that the Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this Decision and Order on all parties in accordance with the Local Rules. Signed by U.S. District Judge Mae A. D'Agostino on 10/13/15. [copies mailed to plaintiffs via regular mail] (ban)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
____________________________________________
VINCENT ROULHAC; MICHAEL MCDONALD;
TASHARKA SARGENT; and RAYMOND JACKSON,
Plaintiffs,
vs.

8:15-CV-0016
(MAD/DJS)

NATHAN P. KENYAN, New York State Police;
JOEY D. RICE, New York State Police; MATTHEW
ROSS, New York State Police; CHRISTIAN WAGER,
New York State Police; JONATHAN DUDA, New York
State Police; TROOPER PISANI, New York State Police;
B.J. CARON, New York State Police, Badge #2823;
K. PAINE, New York State Police,
Defendants.
____________________________________________
APPEARANCES:
VINCENT ROULHAC
Clinton County Jail
25 McCarthy Drive
Plattsburgh, New York 12901
Plaintiff, pro se
MICHAEL MCDONALD
15A2351
Lakeview Shock Incarceration Correctional Facility
P.O. Box T
Brocton, New York 14716
Plaintiff, pro se
TASHARKA SARGENT
Clinton County Jail
25 McCarthy Drive
Plattsburgh, New York 12901
Plaintiff, pro se
RAYMOND JACKSON
Clinton County Jail
25 McCarthy Drive
Plattsburgh, New York 12901
Plaintiff, pro se
Mae A. D'Agostino, U.S. District Judge:

OF COUNSEL:

DECISION AND ORDER
Pro se Plaintiffs Vincent Roulhac, Michael McDonald, Tasharka Sargent, and Raymond
Jackson commenced this action against eight New York State Police Officers. See Dkt. No. 1. At
the commencement of this action, each Plaintiff was being held at the Clinton County Jail after
being individually arrested in independent incidents. Plaintiffs' complaint is a standard pro forma
complaint to bring a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See id. at 1-3. Following
this, Plaintiffs each attached individual narrative statements describing the facts of their
individual arrests. Generally, each Plaintiff claims that he was racially profiled, illegally
searched, and illegally arrested by certain Defendants. However, each of the Plaintiffs' statements
concern arrests from different dates, locations, and by different arresting officers.1 See id. at 4-9.
Plaintiffs' statements are followed by a one-page portion of an unidentified opinion issued by
Hon. Patrick R. McGill, and two random pages that appear to be a portion of a motion written by
an attorney. See id. at 10-12.
In an August 24, 2015 Report-Recommendation and Order, Magistrate Judge Treece
recommended that the Court deny Plaintiffs' request for class certification and dismiss Plaintiffs'
complaint without prejudice and with leave to re-file individual civil actions. See Dkt. No. 22.
Currently before the Court is Magistrate Judge Treece's August 24, 2015 ReportRecommendation and Order, to which neither party has submitted objections.

Vincent Roulhac states that a car he was a passenger in was pulled over while driving on
Route 9 in Essex County, New York on September 28, 2014 by Trooper Nathan P. Kenyon under
the supervision of Detective Joey Rice. Tasharka Sargent states that a car he was a passenger in
was pulled over while driving on I 87 North on September 5, 2014 by Trooper Jonathan Duda and
Trooper Paine. Michael McDonald states that a car he was a passenger in was pulled over in
Plattsburgh, New York, on September 18, 2014 by Officer Christian Wager under the supervision
of Detective Joey Rice. Raymond Jackson states that he was pulled over in Morrisonville, New
York on May 28, 2014 by Sheriff Holland and Officer Ross. Raymond Jackson states he was
pulled over again on June 11, 2014 by Officer Caron.
1

2

When a party files specific objections to a magistrate judge's report-recommendation, the
district court makes a "de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed
findings or recommendations to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). However,
when a party files "[g]eneral or conclusory objections, or objections which merely recite the same
arguments [that he] presented to the magistrate judge," the court reviews those recommendations
for clear error. O'Diah v. Mawhir, No. 9:08-CV-322, 2011 WL 933846, *1 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 16,
2011) (citations and footnote omitted). After the appropriate review, "the court may accept,
reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate
judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
A litigant's failure to file objections to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation,
even when that litigant is proceeding pro se, waives any challenge to the report on appeal. See
Cephas v. Nash, 328 F.3d 98, 107 (2d Cir. 2003) (holding that, "[a]s a rule, a party's failure to
object to any purported error or omission in a magistrate judge's report waives further judicial
review of the point" (citation omitted)). A pro se litigant must be given notice of this rule; notice
is sufficient if it informs the litigant that the failure to timely object will result in the waiver of
further judicial review and cites pertinent statutory and civil rules authority. See Frank v.
Johnson, 968 F.2d 298, 299 (2d Cir. 1992); Small v. Sec'y of Health and Human Servs., 892 F.2d
15, 16 (2d Cir. 1989) (holding that a pro se party's failure to object to a report and
recommendation does not waive his right to appellate review unless the report explicitly states
that failure to object will preclude appellate review and specifically cites 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)
and Rules 72, 6(a), and former 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure).
Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a complaint that sets forth a
claim for relief shall contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
3

entitled to relief." FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2). The purpose of this Rule is "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)). Moreover, Rule 10 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
provides that 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 Court may, on its
own initiative, dismiss a complaint that "does not comply with the requirement that it be short and
plain." Salhuddin v. Cuomo, 861 F.2d 40, 42 (2d Cir. 1988). "Dismissal, however, 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." Hudson, 1998 WL 832708, at *2.
In reviewing a pro se case, the court "must view the submissions by a more lenient
standard than that accorded to 'formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.'" Govan v. Campbell, 289 F.
Supp. 2d 289, 295 (N.D.N.Y. 2007) (quoting Haines v. Kerner, 303 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S. Ct. 594,
30 L. Ed. 2d 652 (1972)) (other citations omitted). "Indeed, the Second Circuit has stated that
'[i]mplicit in the right to self-representation is an obligation on the part of the court to make
reasonable allowances to protect pro se litigants from inadvertent forfeiture of important rights
because of their lack of legal training."' Id. (quoting Traguth v. Zuck, 710 F.2d 90, 95 (2d Cir.
1983)). This does not mean, however, that a pro se litigant is excused from following the
procedural requirements of a short and plain complaint. See Hudson, 1998 WL 832708, at *2.
However, in the cases in which the court dismisses a pro se complaint for failure to comply with
Rule 8, the court should grant the plaintiff an opportunity to amend the complaint to state an
intelligible claim. See Simmons v. Abruzzo, 49 F.3d 83, 86-87 (2d Cir. 1995).
4

Having reviewed Magistrate Judge Treece's August 24, 2015 Report-Recommendation
and Order and the applicable law, the Court finds that Magistrate Judge Treece correctly
recommended that the Court deny Plaintiffs' apparent request for class certification or joinder.
None of the pro se Plaintiffs are attorneys. See Dkt. No. 1. It is well settled that a class action
cannot be maintained by a pro se litigant as non-attorneys may not represent anyone other than
themselves. Miller v. Zerillo, No. CV 07-1719, 2007 WL 4898361, *1 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 2, 2007).
Therefore, Magistrate Judge Treece correctly determined that Plaintiffs' apparent request to have
the matter class certified be denied.
Moreover, Magistrate Judge Treece correctly recommended to dismiss the complaint
without prejudice and with leave to re-file individual civil actions. The complaint fails to
conform to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and, as pled, would be too burdensome for any
Defendant to respond. Further, Plaintiffs' claims must be brought as individual civil actions
rather than a single action joined by each Plaintiff. Rule 20 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure allows for joinder of multiple plaintiffs in one action if the individual plaintiffs assert a
right to relief "(A) arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or
occurrences; and (B) any question of law or fact common to all plaintiffs will arise in the action."
FED. R. CIV. P. 20(a)(1). Although each Plaintiff alleges a similar course of conduct by the named
Defendants during their respective arrests, each Plaintiff has his own personal narrative and the
arrests were in different locations, on different dates, and by different arresting officers. Thus, the
claims of each Plaintiff are not "so logically connected that considerations of judicial economy
and fairness dictate that all the issues be resolved in one lawsuit." Barnhart v. Town of Parma,
252 F.R.D. 156, 160 (W.D.N.Y. 2008). Therefore, joinder of Plaintiffs' claims in one action is
not proper and any amendment to the complaint would be futile.
5

After carefully reviewing the entire record in this matter, Plaintiffs' submissions and the
applicable law, and for the above-stated reasons, the Court hereby
ORDERS that Magistrate Judge Treece's August 24, 2015 Report-Recommendation and
Order is ADOPTED in its entirety for the reasons set forth therein; and the Court further
ORDERS that Plaintiffs' request in the complaint for class certification is DENIED; and
the Court further
ORDERS that Plaintiffs' complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice and with leave to
re-file individual civil actions; and the Court further
ORDERS that the Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this Decision and Order on all
parties in accordance with the Local Rules.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 13, 2015
Albany, New York

6