The opinion of the court was delivered by: ARTHUR SPATT, District Judge
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER
On June 18, 2004, Scott Rabinowitz ("Rabinowitz" or the
"plaintiff"), who is proceeding pro se, commenced this
action, accompanied by an application to proceed in forma
pauperis, alleging issues relating to the custody of his
children. On July 21, 2004, the plaintiff filed an amended
complaint. For the reasons set forth below, the application to
proceed in forma pauperis is granted, and the complaint is
In his voluminous complaint, consisting of 46 pages and
exhibits, Rabinowitz alleges a litany of charges against the
defendants including, inter alia, The State of New York,
several New York State Courts, a judge, a law guardian, and
several lawyers. He claims that jurisdiction of the court is
invoked pursuant to, among others, several Federal Rules of
Evidence, including Rules 105, 402, 403; 28 U.S.C. § 455, which
relates to disqualification of federal judges; Title II of the
Americans with Disabilities; and the First and Fourteenth
Amendments to the United States Constitution.
The gravamen of plaintiff's complaint is that the Family Court
of the State of New York, Suffolk County, should not have issued
an unfavorably opinion granting sole custody of his children to
Linda Cook, the mother of his children.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and Ms. Cook began
dating and cohabiting between the years of 1994 and 1997. While
unmarried, they subsequently had three children, Emily born on
February 13, 1999, Zachary born on October 12, 2000, and Joshua,
born on October 1, 2001.
During this time, they lived in various places, including
California, Ohio, Connecticut, and New York.
Apparently, the relationship between plaintiff and Cook began
to have problems associated with financial difficulties, family
differences, drug use, and religion. The parties sought to
resolve issues relating to the custody of the children in the
Family Court, Suffolk County. A hearing was held before Family
Court Judge Kerry R. Trainor with regard to the custody of the
children. The Plaintiff was represented by counsel for most of
the trial. Judge Trainor issued a decision on February 2, 2002,
which granted sole legal custody of plaintiff's children to the
mother, Linda Cook, and limited visitation rights to the
plaintiff. The Appellate Division of the Second Judicial
Department affirmed the decision on March 15, 2004. The New York
State Court of Appeals denied leave to appeal on May 13, 2004.
Rabinowitz seeks, among other things, (1) full custody of his
children; (2) "[a] permanent order for Linda Cook [mother of his
children] to keep me [him] informed as to any location and
address of where she lives now and at anytime". Compl. at 51; and
(3) reversal of Judge Trainor's decision.
It is well-settled that the Court must read a pro se
plaintiff's complaint liberally. See Hughes v. Rowe,
449 U.S. 5, 9, 101 S.Ct. 173 (1980); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519,
520-21, 92 S.Ct. 594 (1972). Further, at this stage of the
proceedings, the Court assumes the truth of the allegations in
the complaint. See H.J. Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Tel. Co.,
492 U.S. 229, 249-50, 109 S.Ct. 2893 (1989); Koppel v. 4987
Corp., 167 F.3d 125, 127 (2d Cir. 1999).
A. In Forma Pauperis Application
Upon review of the plaintiff's declaration in support of his
application to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court
concludes that the plaintiff's financial status qualifies him to
commence this action without prepayment of the filing fees. See
28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). ...