Curtiss v. Federal, State, County, City Governments-USA Their Employees, Their Unions, Others Attached List of Defentants

Filing 2

ORDER dismissing complaint with prejudice. Signed by Hon. Michael A. Telesca on 3/2/11. (JHF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
RICHARD C. CURTISS,
Plaintiff,
-v-

11-CV-6006L
ORDER

FEDERAL, STATE, COUNTY, CITY
GOVERNMENTS-USA THEIR EMPLOYEES,
THEIR UNIONS, et al.,
Defendants.

INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff has filed this action pro se seeking relief under
42 U.S.C. § 1983 and has paid the required filing fee (Docket No.
1). Plaintiff alleges that the defendants conspired to violate his
constitutional

rights

resulting

in

several

federal

criminal

prosecutions, the foreclosure on his farm, and bankruptcy. For the
reasons discussed below, this case is dismissed with prejudice.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff alleges that the defendants engaged in a conspiracy
to violate his constitutional rights after he reported crimes to
law

enforcement

agencies

alleges that he reported

and

government

officials.

Plaintiff

“Serial Murders of possible over 1000

small, poor black and white farmers in New York State by government
employees,

their

unions,

and

their

women...”

(Docket

No.

1,

Complaint, Factual Allegations). Plaintiff further states that he
was subjected to five false arrests and imprisonments for reporting

these crimes and the injection of “deadly psychiatric drugs” by
“government employees, the GOON SQUAD AND JOHN DOES” in order to
silence him. Plaintiff’s complaint states that he is bringing this
action against “68 government agencies and their 510 co-defendants
and JOHN DOES.”
A district court has the authority to dismiss a case sua
sponte if the complaint is frivolous.

This authority exists

whether the plaintiff has paid the filing fee or is proceeding in
forma pauperis.

Fitzgerald v. First East Seventh Street Tenants

Corp.

362,

221

F.3d

364

(2d

Cir.

2000).

Generally,

pro

se

plaintiffs, whether fee-paying or proceeding in forma pauperis,
should be afforded the opportunity to amend a complaint "prior to
its dismissal for failure to state a claim, unless the court can
rule out any possibility, however unlikely it might be, that an
amended complaint would succeed in stating a claim."

Cruz v.

Gomez, 202 F.3d 593, 597-98 (2d Cir. 2000).
Plaintiff’s claim that over 510 defendants and 68 governmental
agencies conspired against him for reporting the possible death of
over 1000 farmers is not plausible.

Plaintiff’s lengthy list of

defendants include United States District Court and Second Circuit
Court of Appeals Judges and staff; United States Presidents Barack
Obama, William Clinton and Ronald Reagan; United States Attorneys;
and officials and staff of numerous agencies including the Federal
Bureau of Investigation, the United States Marshal’s Office, the

2

Federal

Public

Defenders’

Office,

and

United

States

Naval

Intelligence. Plaintiff attaches several exhibits to his complaint
indicating
individuals

that
that

he

has

been

include

a

directed
private

to

cease

attorney

contact

and

with

government

officials for repeated attempts to pursue his claims.
While the usual practice is to allow leave to replead a
deficient claim, see Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a); see also Ronzani v.
Sanofi, S.A., 899 F.2d 195, 198 (2d Cir. 1990), especially where a
complaint has been submitted pro se, Davidson v. Flynn, 32 F.3d 27,
31 (2d Cir. 1994), such leave may be denied where amendment would
be futile, such as in this case.
The Court determines that this action is frivolous and it
would be futile to afford plaintiff an opportunity to amend his
complaint to state a claim that is not frivolous.

Plaintiff’s

claims are dismissed with prejudice as factually frivolous under
the standard set by the Second Circuit.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with prejudice for the
reasons discussed above.
ALL OF THE ABOVE IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Michael A. Telesca
MICHAEL A. TELESCA
United States District Judge
Dated:

Rochester, New York
March 2, 2011

3