Al-Haj v. Singer et al

Filing 46

ORDER: Accordingly, to the extent the letter at Dkt. No. 45 is an amended complaint, it does not cure the pleading deficiencies identified in the Court's Opinion and Order of September 28, 2021, and it is dismissed. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to mail a copy of this Order to the Plaintiff and to close the case. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Lewis J. Liman on 1/7/2022) (va) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.

Case 1:19-cv-03135-LJL Document 46 Filed 01/07/22 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------------------------------- X
:
NAGIBE AL-HAJ,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
-v:
:
DR. SINGER, DR. SAKALEG, DR. KLEIN, NURSE
:
VINCENT, DR. CRISTINA MUSAT, AND SONTE
:
TAYLOR,
:
:
Defendants.
:
:
---------------------------------------------------------------------- X

1/7/2022

19-cv-3135 (LJL)
ORDER

LEWIS J. LIMAN, United States District Judge:
By Opinion and Order filed on September 28, 2021, the Court granted defendants’
motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint and amended complaint against them. See Dkt. No. 42.
In that Opinion and Order, the Court explained that, even under the liberal pleading standards
afforded to pro se litigants, the complaints failed to state a claim for relief. Specifically, the
Court held that Plaintiff’s allegations did not contain the requisite factual content to state a claim
of constitutional deprivation, including because he did not allege facts to suggest that defendants
departed from ordinary professional judgment or had a malicious reason for their actions or facts
regarding how his First Amendment rights were violated. It also held that Plaintiff did not state a
claim for constitutional violations against one of the defendants for failing to act in incidents
involving fellow patients, explaining that Plaintiff did not plead facts regarding the defendant’s
responses to those incidents and therefore did not plead the deliberate indifference necessary to
show a constitutional violation. The Court dismissed the complaint without prejudice in order to
give Plaintiff the opportunity, having the benefit of the Court’s explanation of the applicable
pleading standards, to amend his complaint within ninety days of the date of that Opinion and
Order
Plaintiff submitted a letter on October 26, 2021 titled “Amending Compling [sic].” See
Dkt. No. 45. The letter is difficult to comprehend, but it does not appear to allege any facts
regarding the defendants in this action, instead seeming to contain general statements
unconnected to the defendants, including that Plaintiff has been working in Kirby (the center
where he is housed) with no pay and talking about his faith for free, that he has been injured with
injection, and that jobs are not done correctly. Even construing this letter as an amended
complaint and interpreting it “to raise the strongest claim that it suggests,” Hogan v. Fischer, 738
F.3d 509, 515 (2d Cir. 2013), the Court is unable to determine what claims, if any, Plaintiff is
alleging against the defendants or what actions defendants took (or did not) that would make
them liable to Plaintiff. Accordingly, to the extent the letter at Dkt. No. 45 is an amended

Case 1:19-cv-03135-LJL Document 46 Filed 01/07/22 Page 2 of 2

complaint, it does not cure the pleading deficiencies identified in the Court’s Opinion and Order
of September 28, 2021, and it is dismissed. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to mail a
copy of this Order to the Plaintiff and to close the case.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 7, 2022
New York, New York

__________________________________
LEWIS J. LIMAN
United States District Judge