The opinion of the court was delivered by: William C. Conner, District Judge:
This pro se civil rights action is presently before the Court
on the motion of defendant YMCA of Greater New York — Prospect
Park Branch ("YMCA") to dismiss the amended complaint as
against it for failure to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), Fed.R.Civ.P. For the
following reasons, YMCA's motion is granted.
Plaintiff Richard S. Studifin brings this action pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1981, 1982, 1983 and 1985(3) to redress the
deprivation of his civil rights by numerous defendants. In his
amended complaint, pro se plaintiff alleges that he and his
YMCA room were subject to an illegal search and seizure. He
also charges defendants with false arrest, threat with a
firearm, malicious prosecution, denial of a jury trial and
denial of appellate review.
Plaintiff implicates YMCA three times in his amended
2. That in or around March 1985, Sergeant Heekin,
shield 2865 of the New York City Police Department
Firearms Control Section, License Division —
together with Gussie Sanzillo, (Executive Director
of YMCA) stood in the lobby waiting for me to leave
the premises, thereafter, broke and entered my room
attempting to secure my firearms.
11. That the YMCA commenced a Hold-Over proceeding
in the landlord-tenant Part of the Civil Court
located at 141 Livingston Street, Brooklyn, New
York 11201., for "NO REASON".
12. That the YMCA brought in an Executive from the
main branch of the herein-mentioned located in the
borough of Manhattan, (a black man) so the case
would not have racial overtones, moreover, their
activities were performed under color of State law
or State Authority they conspired and involved
itself in the Constitutional deprivation of my
Pursuant to New York law, YMCA brought a hold-over proceeding
in the Landlord/Tenant Part of Kings County Civil Court to
evict plaintiff and to collect rent arrearages and fair value
for the period after which the lease had expired. YMCA also
believed plaintiff unlawfully possessed firearms in his YMCA
room. Although plaintiff contested the proceeding, a final
judgment of possession was rendered in favor of YMCA.
When considering a motion to dismiss, a court must accept
plaintiff's allegations as true. See Scheuer v. Rhodes,
416 U.S. 232, 236, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 1686, 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974). The
test is whether, viewed in the light most favorable to the
plaintiff, and with every doubt resolved in his favor, the
complaint states any valid ground for relief. See Conley v.
Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 101-102, 2 L.Ed.2d 80
(1957); Clay v. Martin, 509 F.2d 109 (2d Cir. 1975). A
complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim
unless it appears beyond a doubt that plaintiff can prove no
set of facts in support of a claim that would entitle him to
relief. See Dahlberg v. Becker, 748 F.2d 85 (2d Cir. 1984),
cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1084, 105 S.Ct. 1845, 85 L.Ed.2d 144
(1985). Additionally, in a case brought by a pro se plaintiff,
the court must construe the complaint broadly, holding it to
less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by
counsel. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S.Ct. 594,
595-96, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972).
YMCA's motion to dismiss challenges the sufficiency of
plaintiff's claims under each of the civil rights statutes.