Almonte v. Law Enforcement Agency et al

Filing 6

ORDER OF DISMISSAL: Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff and note service on the docket. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 1/10/22) (rdz) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.

Case 1:21-cv-08991-LTS Document 6 Filed 01/10/22 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
JUAN CARLOS ALMONTE,
Plaintiff,
-against-

21-CV-8991 (LTS)

LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY;
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION; MAIL
PROCESS AND POSTAL SERVICE; MICHAEL
CAPRA,

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Defendants.
LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge:
Plaintiff, who is currently incarcerated at Sing Sing Correctional Facility, brings this
action pro se. By order dated December 29, 2021, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed
in forma pauperis (IFP), that is, without prepayment of fees. 1 The Court dismisses the complaint
for the reasons set forth below.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Court must dismiss a complaint, or portion thereof, that is frivolous or malicious,
fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant
who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B), 1915A(b); see Abbas v. Dixon,
480 F.3d 636, 639 (2d Cir. 2007). While the law mandates dismissal on any of these grounds, the
Court is obliged to construe pro se pleadings liberally, Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir.
2009), and interpret them to raise the “strongest [claims] that they suggest,” Triestman v. Fed.

1

Prisoners are not exempt from paying the full filing fee even when they have been
granted permission to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1).

Case 1:21-cv-08991-LTS Document 6 Filed 01/10/22 Page 2 of 3

Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474-75 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citations
omitted) (emphasis in original).
A claim is frivolous when it “lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324-25 (1989), abrogated on other grounds by Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007); see also Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992)
(holding that “finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the
level of the irrational or the wholly incredible”); Livingston v. Adirondack Beverage Co., 141
F.3d 434, 437 (2d Cir. 1998) (“[A]n action is ‘frivolous’ when either: (1) the factual contentions
are clearly baseless . . . ; or (2) the claim is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory.”)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff’s complaint is illegible, with notations scribbled in all of the margins of the
pages and handwriting that is indecipherable. Plaintiff writes, for example, “I’m a person that if I
don’t get what I want knowing it’s [indecipherable] I will due [sic] something crazy and demand
charges and get paid for it. You got the right terrorist.” (Compl., ECF 2 at 2.) He wants
defendants to “stop hiring criminal’s [sic] that are mentally retarded.” (Id.) Plaintiff seems to
allege that his mail lacks a “USPS tracker postal stamp.” (Id. at 4.)
He brings suit against Sing Sing Superintendent Michael Capra, asking the Court to order
that he be arrested. (Id.) Plaintiff also sues “law enforcement agency,” the “Department of
Correction,” and “Mail Process and Postal Service,” none of which is a proper defendant.
DISCUSSION
Even when read with the “special solicitude” due pro se pleadings, Triestman, 470 F.3d at
474-75, Plaintiff’s claims rise to the level of the irrational, and there is no legal theory on which
he can rely. See Denton, 504 U.S. at 33; Livingston, 141 F.3d at 437.
2

Case 1:21-cv-08991-LTS Document 6 Filed 01/10/22 Page 3 of 3

District courts generally grant a pro se plaintiff an opportunity to amend a complaint to
cure its defects, but leave to amend is not required where it would be futile. See Hill v. Curcione,
657 F.3d 116, 123-24 (2d Cir. 2011); Salahuddin v. Cuomo, 861 F.2d 40, 42 (2d Cir. 1988).
Because the defects in Plaintiff’s complaint cannot be cured with an amendment, the Court
declines to grant Plaintiff leave to amend and dismisses the action as frivolous. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would
not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an
appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). The Clerk of Court is
directed to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff and note service on the docket.
SO ORDERED.
Dated:

January 10, 2022
New York, New York
/s/ Laura Taylor Swain
LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN
Chief United States District Judge

3