Papazoni v. Shumlin

Filing 3

OPINION AND ORDER granting 1 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis and all claims are DISMISSED. Plaintiff is GRANTED leave to file an Amended Complaint, consistent with this Opinion and Order, within 30days. Failure to file an Amended Complaint on or before by 5/22/2015 will result in dismissal of this case. Signed by District Judge J. Garvan Murtha on 4/22/2015. (kak)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
DISTRICT OF VERMONT
DAVID PAPAZONI,

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Plaintiff,
v.
PETER SHUMLIN,
Governor of Vermont,
Defendant.

Case No. 1:15-cv-56

OPINION AND ORDER
(Doc. 1)
Plaintiff David Papazoni, appearing pro se, brings this
action against Peter Shumlin, Governor of the State of Vermont.
Pending before the Court is Papazoni’s Motion to Proceed In Forma
Pauperis (“IFP”).

(Doc. 1.)

Papazoni has submitted an affidavit

that satisfies the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) for IFP
status.

Accordingly, the request to proceed IFP is GRANTED.

However, for the reasons set forth below, this matter is
DISMISSED.
DISCUSSION
Papazoni alleges Governor Shumlin is liable for the conduct
of several state agencies, as well as unnamed state employees,
for “fraud[], abuse[] and discriminat[ion]” related to Papazoni’s
social security, medical records, and health.

(Doc. 1-2 at 1.)

Further, he claims he “is being wrongfully evicted.”

Id.

Filings by self-represented parties are "to be liberally
construed, and a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded,

must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings
drafted by lawyers."

Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007)

(internal quotations marks and citations omitted).

However, a

district court may dismiss a case seeking in forma pauperis
status if it determines that the complaint " . . . fails to state
a claim on which relief may be granted . . . ."

28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(2)(B).
The district court also has inherent authority to dismiss a
case that presents no meritorious issue.

Pillay v. Immigration &

Naturalization Serv., 45 F.3d 14, 17 (2d Cir. 1995) (court has
"inherent authority" to dismiss petition that presents "no
arguably meritorious issue").

The complaint must allege "enough

facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face."
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).

"A claim

has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content
that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the
defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged."

Ashcroft v.

Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
Papazoni’s proposed Complaint fails to state a claim on
which relief can be granted because his claims are barred by the
doctrine of res judicata.

The doctrine of res judicata, or claim

preclusion, provides that “a final judgment on the merits of an
action precludes the parties or their privies from relitigating
issues that were or could have been raised in that action.”
Maharaj v. Bankamerica Corp., 128 F.3d 94, 97 (2d Cir. 1997)
2

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

The district

court applies federal law to determine the preclusive effect of a
federal judgment.

Marvel Characters, Inc. v. Simon, 310 F.3d

280, 286 (2d Cir. 2002).

In the Second Circuit, res judicata

bars subsequent claims where the Court determines the matter was
previously decided by: “(1) a final judgment on the merits, (2)
by a court of competent jurisdiction, (3) in a case involving the
same parties or their privies, and (4) involving the same cause
of action.”

NML Capital, Ltd. v. Banco Central de la Republica

Argentina, 652 F.3d 172, 184-85 (2d Cir. 2011).
Here, two previous matters brought by Papazoni in this Court
bar the present action against Governor Shumlin.

See Papazoni v.

State of Vt., No. 5:12-cv-01, ECF No. 22, slip op. at 4 (D. Vt.
May 9, 2013), appeal dismissed, No. 13-2281, ECF No. 16, slip op.
(2d Cir. Aug. 21, 2013), and Papazoni v. Shumlin, No. 2:13-cv258, 2014 WL 1491135, at *1-2 (D. Vt. Apr. 15, 2014).

Both cases

involved the same causes of action, and this Court dismissed all
claims against Governor Shumlin on the merits.
The first case alleged Governor Shumlin participated in
“Abuses, Frauds, and Discriminations” in the form of an
improperly recorded social security number and the denial of
access to medications through the Medicaid D prescription drug
program, among other claims.

Papazoni v. State of Vermont, No.

5:12-cv-01, ECF No. 22 slip op. at 2 (D. Vt. May 9, 2013), appeal
dismissed, No. 13-2281, ECF No. 16, slip op. (2d Cir. Aug. 21,
3

2013).

Chief Judge Reiss considered the possibility that

Papazoni intended to bring claims against Governor Shumlin in his
individual capacity, and concluded that he failed to allege facts
connecting Governor Shumlin to an ongoing violation of federal
law which might merit prospective injunctive relief, including
“reasonable accommodations,” under the Ex Parte Young doctrine.
Id. at 8, 9.

After granting leave to file an amended complaint

on two separate occasions, all claims against Governor Shumlin
were dismissed.
In the second case, Judge William K. Sessions, III dismissed
similar claims against Governor Shumlin on res judicata grounds,
once again alleging “Abuses, Frauds, and Discriminations.”
Papazoni v. Shumlin, No. 2:13-cv-258, 2014 WL 1491135, at *1-2
(D. Vt. Apr. 15, 2014).
The facts alleged in the proposed Complaint are virtually
identical to those alleged in the two previous cases.

Because

both cases were dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, those judgments bar Papazoni from
bringing his present claims.

See Federated Dep’t Stores v.

Moitie, 452 U.S. 394, 399, n.3 (1981) (dismissal for failure to
state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) operates as a “judgment on the
merits”); see also Berrios v. New York City Hous. Auth., 564 F.3d
130, 134 (2d Cir. 2009).
To the extent Papazoni’s allegation regarding a pending
eviction involves a new claim that he could not have brought
4

against Governor Shumlin in the first two instances, the proposed
Complaint lacks sufficient facts to state a plausible claim for
relief, as required by Twombly and Iqbal.

The Court need not

infer unconstitutional conduct without sufficient factual detail
to render the claim facially plausible.

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 686

(“[c]onclusory statements without reference to . . . []factual
context” do not satisfy Rule 8(a) pleading standard).
Furthermore, “[i]t is well settled that a defendant’s personal
involvement is a prerequisite for the assessment of damages in a
§ 1983 action . . . and that the doctrine of respondeat superior
is inapplicable to § 1983 claims.”

Pugliese v. Cuomo, 911 F.

Supp. 58, 61 (N.D.N.Y. 1996) (citing McKinnon v. Patterson, 568
F.2d 930, 934 (2d Cir. 1977) and Polk Cnty. v. Dodson, 454 U.S.
312, 325 (1981)).

Papazoni does not allege any facts to allow

the Court to plausibly infer that Governor Shumlin was personally
involved or otherwise responsible for any of the wrongdoing
alleged.
Therefore, because the proposed Complaint fails to state a
claim on which relief can be granted, all claims are DISMISSED.
Generally, a pro se litigant is afforded an opportunity to
amend his or her pleading prior to dismissal “unless the court
can rule out the possibility, however unlikely it might be, that
an amended complaint would succeed in stating a claim.”

Abbas v.

Dixon, 480 F.3d 636, 639 (2d Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks
and citation omitted).

Because Papazoni’s claims might
5

conceivably be brought against a different defendant (or
defendants) other than Governor Shumlin, the Court GRANTS
Papazoni leave to file an Amended Complaint.
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, upon conducting the review
required under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and 1915(e)(2)(B),
Papazoni's Motion to Proceed IFP (Doc. 1) is GRANTED, and all
claims are DISMISSED.
Further, Papazoni is GRANTED leave to file an Amended
Complaint, consistent with this Opinion and Order, within thirty
(30) days.

Any amended filing shall be entitled “Amended

Complaint” and must allege all claims and name all defendants
Papazoni intends to include, as the Amended Complaint will
supersede the original proposed Complaint in all respects.
Failure to file an Amended Complaint on or before May 22, 2015
will result in dismissal of this case.
SO ORDERED.
Dated at Brattleboro, in the District of Vermont, this 22nd
day of April, 2015.
/s/ J. Garvan Murtha
Honorable J. Garvan Murtha
United States District Judge

6