Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Valle v. United States

September 6, 2006

ISRAEL VALLE, PLAINTIFF,
v.
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, GEORGE WALKER BUSH, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS A PRESIDENT AND COMMANDER IN CHIEF,
JURY DEMAND
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, STATE OF NEW YORK, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS A U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENCY, OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES OF THE UNITED STATES (28 U.S.C. 1391(E) (1992 & SUPP. 1992) OF [FEDERAL DEFENDANT SUPERIOR] UNITED STATE [SIC] OF AMERICA; UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS A U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENCY, OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES OF THE UNITED STATES (28 U.S.C. 1391(E) (1992 & SUPP. 1992) OF [FEDERAL DEFENDANT SUPERIOR] UNITED STATE [SIC] OF AMERICA; CITY OF NEW YORK, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS A U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENCY, OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES OF THE UNITED STATES (28 U.S.C. 1391(E) (1992 & SUPP. 1992) OF [FEDERAL DEFENDANT SUPERIOR] UNITED STATE [SIC] OF AMERICA; UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS A U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENCY, OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES OF THE UNITED STATES (28 U.S.C. 1391(E) (1992 & SUPP. 1992) OF [FEDERAL DEFENDANT SUPERIOR] UNITED STATE [SIC] OF AMERICA, DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Robert P. Patterson, Jr., U.S.D.J.

OPINION AND ORDER

On June 19, 2006, Plaintiff Israel Valle, pursuant to Rule 7(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, filed a Notice of Motion for "leave to file the instant complaint" (the attachment is denominated as "Amended Complaint") in this action, 05 Civ. 5318, then pending before Judge Laura Taylor Swain.*fn1 (Notice of Motion 2.) The proposed Amended Complaint ("Proposed Amended Complaint") names as Defendants:

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, STATE OF NEW YORK, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS A U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENCY, OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES OF THE UNITED STATES (28 U.S.C. 1391(e) (1992 & supp. 1992) OF [FEDERAL DEFENDANT SUPERIOR] UNITED STATE [sic] OF AMERICA; UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS A U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENCY, OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES OF THE UNITED STATES (28 U.S.C. 1391(e) (1992 & supp. 1992) OF [FEDERAL DEFENDANT SUPERIOR] UNITED STATE [sic] OF AMERICA; CITY OF NEW YORK, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS A U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENCY, OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES OF THE UNITED STATES (28 U.S.C. 1391(e) (1992 & supp. 1992) OF [FEDERAL DEFENDANT SUPERIOR] UNITED STATE [sic] OF AMERICA; UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS A U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENCY, OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES OF THE UNITED STATES (28 U.S.C. 1391(e) (1992 & supp. 1992) OF [FEDERAL DEFENDANT SUPERIOR] UNITED STATE [sic] OF AMERICA.

The Proposed Amended Complaint

The Proposed Amended Complaint charges that on March 6, 2006 the Defendants City and State of New York were employed as agents by the United States of America (labeled the "federal superior defendant"), (Proposed Amended Complaint ("Am. Compl.") ¶¶ 6-8, 10); that on March 6, 2006, Defendants United States District Courts for the Southern District of New York*fn2 and Eastern District of New York,*fn3 and the Defendant United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit*fn4 were agencies of the federal defendant superior, (id. && 11-16, 31); and that Defendant George Walker Bush was hired as President and Commander-in-Chief of the federal defendant superior, (id. && 17-18).

The Proposed Amended Complaint states that the action arises under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and that each and all of the acts of Defendants were done by Defendants, not as individuals, but under the authority of their offices as U.S. government agencies, officers or employees of the United States. (Id. ¶ 19-20.)

As a First Cause of Action, Plaintiff alleges: (1) that on March 6, 2006 at 9:30 a.m. in Room 1305 of the Daniel Patrick Moynihan Courthouse at 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York 10007, Defendants "wrongfully and falsely engaged in enterprise corruption, RICO violations and official misconduct against plaintiff . . . without any rights or grounds therefore," (id. ¶ 27); (2) that on March 6, 2006, the Defendant "wrongfully and falsely accused [Plaintiff] with commencing 'frivolous and malicious' litigation within the meaning of [28 U.S.C. §] 352(b)(1)(A)(iii) . . . and Local Rule 4(c)(3)," (id. ¶ 28); and (3) that Plaintiff was deprived of his constitutional rights and privileges due to enterprise corruption and RICO violations by Defendants District Courts for the Southern District of New York, Eastern District of New York, and for the United States Court of Appeals by Chief Judge Walker on February 21, 2006, (id. ¶¶ 31-32).

The Second Cause of Action charges that on March 6, 2006 at approximately 9:33 a.m. in Room 1305 at the United States Courthouse at 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York, Defendants U.S.D.J. Swain, U.S.M.J. Maas, U.S.D.J. Mukasey, Pro Se Office staff attorneys Emmanuella Souffrant, Jonathan Giovanni, and Pro Se Office clerk, Anthony Daniels, "with great force and violence, violently seized, assaulted and laid hold of the Plaintiff . . . ." (Id. ¶ 39.) Plaintiff further charges that acting within the scope of their employment these same officials "intentionally, willfully and maliciously assaulted and battered plaintiff . . . without his consent and with the intention of causing harmful and/or offensive bodily contact to the plaintiff and caused such batter [sic] in and about his head, neck, back, body and limbs." (Id. ¶ 40.) By reason of the assault and battery committed by Defendants "acting within the scope of their authority, . . . the plaintiff suffered great body injury in and about his head, neck, back, body and limbs and was rendered sick, sore, lame and disabled . . . ." (Id. at ¶ 41.)

The Third Cause of Action charges that the Defendant United States of America, was "careless and reckless in hiring" and retaining as its employees the other named defendants in that they "lacked the experience, deportment and ability to be employed by the [United States]." (Id. ¶¶ 43-44.) Specifically, the United States "failed to exercise due care and caution in its hiring practices, and in particular, in hiring the defendant employees who lacked the mental capacity and the ability to function as [its] employee[s] . . . ." (Id.) "[T]he enterprise corruption, RICO violations and official misconduct, assault and battery and the resulting injuries to [Plaintiff] were caused wholly and solely by reason of the negligence of [Defendants] . . . ." (Id. ¶ 45.)

The Fourth Cause of Action charges that Defendants "negligently, carelessly and recklessly failed to properly train and supervise their employees," in particular U.S.D.J. Swain, U.S.M.J. Maas, U.S.D.J. Mukasey and Pro Se Office employees Souffrant, Giovanni, and Daniels. (Id. ¶¶ 48-50.)

The Fifth Cause of Action charges that the "agenc[ies], officers and employees of the United States" injured Plaintiff by "negligently, carelessly, and recklessly" performing their duties, and by conspiring to commit the crimes of "enterprise corruption, RICO violations and official misconduct, [and] assault and battery . . . ." (Id. ¶¶ 53-57.)

The Sixth Cause of Action charges that on March 6, 2006 at approximately 9:33 a.m. at Room 1305 in the United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY, "and at subsequent times [and locations] thereafter, including but not limited to the Eastern District of New York located at 225 Cadman Plaza East Brooklyn . . . and in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit located at 40 Foley Square," Defendants maliciously prosecuted frivolous charges against Plaintiff while "acting in performance of their employment and within the scope of their authority . . . ." (Id. ¶¶ 58-66.) Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants testified falsely and withheld vital information before a Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals on February 21, 2006, causing injury to Plaintiff's reputation and deprivation of his liberty. (Id. ¶¶ 62-65.)

The Seventh Cause of Action alleged in the Proposed Amended Complaint charges that on March 6, 2006 at 9:33 a.m. at Room 1305, United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York, Defendants U.S.D.J. Swain, U.S.M.J. Maas, U.S.D.J. Mukasey, and Pro Se Office employees Souffrant, Giovanni, and Daniels, as part of their official employment as public officers and employees of the United States of America, violently persecuted the Defendant by conspiring to commit the crime of enterprise corruption in violation of section 460.20 of the Penal Law. (Id. ¶¶ 67-69.)

In paragraph Seventieth (a) through (h), Plaintiff asserts that, without Plaintiff's consent, Defendants engaged in enterprise corruption, RICO violations, and official misconduct by 1) falsely charging Plaintiff with filing frivolous charges in violation of 28 U.S.C. ยง 352(b)(1)(A)(iii) and Local Rule 4(c)(3); 2) causing an assault and battery by threatening, touching and beating Plaintiff; and (3) failing to properly hire, train, supervise and ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.