United States District Court, Southern District of New York
June 26, 2002
JEFFREY A. KENNEDY, PLAINTIFF,
N.Y.S.D.O.C.S., BRIAN FISCHER, CARL OKEN AND VALARIE COLON, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: VICTOR Marrero, United States District Judge.
Plaintiff Jeffrey A. Kennedy ("Kennedy"), appearing pro se, commenced
the present action alleging employment discrimination in violation of
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e to
§ 2000e-17. Kennedy employed the standard pro se complaint form
provided to him by the Pro Se Office in this District. On that form, the
discriminatory conduct of which Kennedy complains includes unequal terms
and conditions of employment and retaliation. Furthermore, Kennedy
alleges that he was discriminated against on the basis of his race.
As to retaliation, Kennedy contends that his employer unlawfully
retaliated against him because he opposed a practice of discrimination
against another employee. Kennedy supplemented his standard complaint
form with additional allegations which shed no light on the impenetrable
claims that he asserts.
First, while Kennedy alleges discrimination based on race, there are no
factual allegations at all in either the complaint form or his attachment
that concern his employer's allegedly discriminatory conduct based on
Second, although Kennedy's attachment to the complaint discusses an
incident involving another Corrections Officer, neither the complaint nor
his attachment substantiates what Kennedy's involvement was, the nature
of his alleged "opposition" to discriminatory conduct or how his employer
retaliated against him. In short, beyond the bald assertion of claims,
Kennedy has failed to give this Court and the parties notice of any facts
that would give rise to those claims.
It is well-settled that pleadings of pro se litigants are judged more
liberally than those drafted by experienced counsel. Haines v. Kerner,
404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). Nevertheless, a complaint that is
"so confused, ambiguous, vague, or otherwise unintelligible that its true
substance, if any, is well disguised," may be dismissed sua sponte for
failure to comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Salahuddin v. Cuomo, 861 F.2d 40, 42 (2d Cir. 1988) (citation omitted).
Kennedy's complaint contains no factual allegations that would
substantiate any of his assertions, and therefore, it is inherently
unclear what claims he seeks to pursue and which events might give rise
to those hypothetical claims.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that the complaint is dismissed with leave to file an amended
complaint, within thirty (30) days, consistent with this Order; and it is
ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.
© 1992-2003 VersusLaw Inc.