Gaston v. 78 Catherine Woman Shelter

Filing 8

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE TO REPLEAD: Plaintiff's complaint, filed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) (2)(B)(ii), with 30 days' leave to replead. The Court certifies u nder 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 Court directs the Clerk of Court to hold this matter open on the docket until a civil judgment is entered. (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 3/6/2025) (rro)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
CAMILLE GASTON,
Plaintiff,
-against78 CATHERINE WOMAN SHELTER,

24-CV-5358 (LTS)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
WITH LEAVE TO REPLEAD

Defendant.
LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge:
Plaintiff, who is appearing pro se, brings this action asserting violations of her rights.
Plaintiff originally filed this action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
New York, which transferred it here. By order dated July 16, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiff’s
request to proceed in forma pauperis, that is, without prepayment of fees.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Court must dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint, or any portion of the complaint,
that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on 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);
see Livingston v. Adirondack Beverage Co., 141 F.3d 434, 437 (2d Cir. 1998). The Court must
also dismiss a complaint when the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction of the claims raised.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).
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. Bureau of Prisons, 470
F.3d 471, 474 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (emphasis in
original). But the “special solicitude” in pro se cases, id. at 475 (citation omitted), has its limits –

to state a claim, pro se pleadings still must comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, which requires a complaint to make a short and plain statement showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief.
BACKGROUND
The following facts are drawn from the complaint. 1 Plaintiff Camille Gaston resides in
Brooklyn, New York. She brings this suit against the Catherine Street Women’s Shelter in
Manhattan (sued as “78 Catherine Woman Shelter”). The allegations are difficult to decipher.
Plaintiff states:
All my paper every other thing for 3 month for me not to go to court, plus they
tell the person I am suppose to go to court with Ho is my Dr Brown. Social
worker lied on me. Sent me to see Sack for no reason . . . . Recupe me to see
Symth as Sack Hospital setting for mental . . . .
(ECF 1, at 4.)
In response to a question on the form complaint about the facts underlying the claim,
Plaintiff writes:
Man & girl want to kill me I tell floor manager she said I am liedying (2) I get bitt
up by the man on my head (3) same man push me in my shoulder coming from
Hospital at 6 am give those worker hospital then by going to the store for cigarette
young man poush me.
(Id. at 5.)
Plaintiff seeks $1.5 million in damages. (Id. at 3.)
DISCUSSION
Rule 8 requires a complaint to include enough facts to state a claim for relief “that is
plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim is facially
plausible if the plaintiff pleads enough factual detail to allow the Court to draw the inference that
1

The Court quotes from the complaint verbatim. All spelling, grammar, and punctuation
are as in the original unless noted otherwise.
2

the defendant is liable for the alleged misconduct. In reviewing the complaint, the Court must
accept all well-pleaded factual allegations as true. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79
(2009). But it does not have to accept as true “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of
action,” which are essentially just legal conclusions. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. After separating
legal conclusions from well-pleaded factual allegations, the Court must determine whether those
facts make it plausible – not merely possible – that the pleader is entitled to relief. Id.
Plaintiff’s allegations are insufficient to put Defendant on notice of what Defendant did
or failed to do that allegedly violated her rights. Plaintiff’s claims must therefore be dismissed
for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
LEAVE TO AMEND GRANTED
Plaintiff proceeds in this matter without the benefit of an attorney. District courts
generally should grant a self-represented plaintiff an opportunity to amend a complaint to cure its
defects, unless amendment 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). Indeed, the Second Circuit has
cautioned that district courts “should not dismiss [a pro se complaint] without granting leave to
amend at least once when a liberal reading of the complaint gives any indication that a valid
claim might be stated.” Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99, 112 (2d Cir. 2000) (quoting Gomez v.
USAA Fed. Sav. Bank, 171 F.3d 794, 795 (2d Cir. 1999)). Because it is unclear whether Plaintiff
may be able to allege additional facts to state a valid claim, the Court grants Plaintiff 30 days’
leave to amend her complaint to detail her claims.
If Plaintiff does not file an amended complaint within the time allowed, the Court will
direct the Clerk of Court to enter judgment in this action.

3

CONCLUSION
Plaintiff’s complaint, filed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), is dismissed
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), with 30 days’ leave to replead.
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 Court directs the Clerk of Court to hold this matter open on the docket until a civil
judgment is entered.
SO ORDERED.
Dated:

March 6, 2025
New York, New York
/s/ Laura Taylor Swain
LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN
Chief United States District Judge

4