UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
June 7, 2007
DWAYNE HALL, SR., PLAINTIFF,
ONONDAGA COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT., DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Norman A. Mordue, Chief U.S. District Judge
Presently before this Court is an amended complaint filed by Dwayne Hall ("plaintiff" or "Hall") in accordance with this Court's April 9, 2007, order ("April Order"). Dkt. No. 4. Plaintiff was previously granted leave to proceed with this action in forma pauperis. Id.
The April Order found that plaintiff had failed to plead a cause of action upon which relief could be granted. The Court, however, permitted plaintiff a second opportunity to set forth his claims. The April Order advised plaintiff that, in any amended complaint, ". . . plaintiff must set forth not only the facts concerning the claims against the defendant, but also the constitutional violations that plaintiff believes the defendants have performed." Dkt. No. 4.
The amended complaint does not contain any factual allegations in the body of the complaint, and the prayer for relief is "I want my name cleared. I would like my wife and children to be compensated for all of there (sic) pain and suffering." Dkt. No. 6. Attached to the amended complaint are a number of documents. These documents include grievances plaintiff filed with the Onondaga County Sheriff's Department in 1999 and 2000, a narrative account of events occurring between 1995 and 2001 during the course of plaintiff's employment with defendant, a narrative of the events surrounding plaintiff's resignation in March 2004, and a statement regarding the treatment of defendant's employees between 2004 and 2006.
A review of the amended complaint, in its totality, reveals that plaintiff did not comply with the April Order of this Court. The amended complaint fails to offer any indication of the nature or legal basis for plaintiff's claims. In fact, plaintiff's amended complaint fails to indicate which, if any, of plaintiff's civil or constitutional rights defendant violated. Even the most lenient review of the amended complaint leads the Court to the conclusion that plaintiff has failed to set forth any claim for relief in the amended complaint. Accordingly, plaintiff's complaint is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and Rule 5.4(a) of the Local Rules of Practice of this District.
WHEREFORE, it is hereby ORDERED, that this action is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and Rule 5.4(a) of the Local Rules of Practice of this District, and it is further
ORDERED, that the Clerk serve a copy this Order on Hall by regular mail.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2007 VersusLaw Inc.