The opinion of the court was delivered by: BARTELS
Defendants New York State and Governor George Pataki (collectively "Defendants") move to dismiss plaintiff Jose F. Molina's pro se complaint in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq ("RICO") action. Defendants move to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) and (6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action under the Eleventh Amendment and failure to state a claim under § 1983 or RICO upon which relief can be granted.
Molina instituted the above-captioned action by pro se complaint dated January 29, 1995. Construing Molina's complaint as liberally as possible, as required by Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106, 97 S. Ct. 285, 292, 50 L. Ed. 2d 251 (1976) and Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 92 S. Ct. 594, 30 L. Ed. 2d 652 (1972), he seems to claim, in essence, that his state court convictions resulted from a conspiracy between the courts "in conjunction of [sic] public and law enforcement employees" and malicious prosecution by the arresting officer. (Complaint at 1).
Specifically, Molina claims that the New York State Court System, allegedly under the direction of former Governor Mario Cuomo, "utilized the law as a weapon to segregate the minorities." (Complaint at 2). Molina states:
The claim is simple and straight forward. The claim is stated as follows: Plaintiff claims R.I.C.O., "Malicious Prosecution", conspiracy and his right to waive right to counsel of his right to counsel clause of the United States Constitution and the way the law is administered by the order of the Queens Supreme, Family justices . . . and the appellates justices . . . including the Clerk of the Court . . . for misplacing petitions and for ignoring Plaintiff's brief (two years) on behalf of former Governor Mario Cuomo, also, Plaintiff defense counsel who conspired and broke confidentiality.
Plaintiff contends the present way the Queens Court System administer cases infringed and violated the rights of Plaintiff, only by declaring the convictions dismissed it could be said that real and fair justice was applied to an innocent man. (Complaint at 2-3)(errors in original)
The circumstances giving rise to this action seem to be a number of convictions and proceedings in Queens. First, in Family Court, Molina apparently lost custody of his children. Then, on June 1, 1989, Molina was convicted by a jury in Supreme Court, Queens County (Golia, J.) of six counts of sexual abuse in the first degree, two counts of sodomy in the third degree, rape in the third degree, and four counts of endangering the welfare of a child. The judgment was subsequently affirmed on appeal to the Appellate Division, Second Department of the Supreme Court People v. Molina, 200 A.D.2d 772, 608 N.Y.S.2d 861 (N.Y.App. Div. 1994) and further appeal was denied by the New York Court of Appeals. People v. Molina, 639 N.E.2d 762, 83 N.Y.2d 969, 616 N.Y.S.2d 22)(1994).
The essence of Molina's allegations seem to be that his convictions and loss of custody stem from an alleged conspiracy headed by former Governor Cuomo which sought to build more prisons and segregate minorities--a goal allegedly reached through unconstitutional convictions. (Complaint at 6-7)
Molina now seeks 1) dismissal of his convictions based on violations of Molina's "civil and constitutional rights under the color of state law" (Id. at 8); 2) declaratory judgment in the nature of immediate release from custody; 3) court ordered national and international media coverage (Id. at 8); 4) $ 20,000,000 damages (Id. at 8-9); 5) a court ordered jury trial of the members of the alleged conspiracy, including, but not limited to, the defendants named in this action, and others of Italian descent who he claims conspired against him (Id. at 9); 6) an investigation of Cuomo's political appointments (Id. at 9); 7) an interview with an international human rights commission (Id. at 9); 8) assignment of counsel in this action (Id. at 10); 9) leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Id. at 10); and 10) for the court expedite decision in this matter (Id. at 10).
Upon a preliminary reading of Molina's complaint, by order dated February 15, 1995, this Court granted Molina's application to proceed in forma pauperis.
In response to Molina's complaint and in lieu of an answer, New York State and Pataki move for dismissal of this action under Federal Rule 12(b)(1) and (6) for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action under the Eleventh Amendment and failure to state a claim under § 1983 or RICO upon which relief can be granted.
Viewing Molina's papers liberally, accepting the allegations as true, and construing all reasonable inferences in favor of Molina, the Court finds no set of facts, beyond vague and conclusory allegations, which would entitle Molina to the relief he seeks. This Court need not argue a pro ...