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.

Lindsey v. DeAngelis

August 2, 2007

LARRY B. LINDSEY, PLAINTIFF,
v.
PATRICIA DEANGELIS*FN1, RENSSELAER COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY; LAURA KRUGLER, ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY, DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Lawrence E. Kahn, U.S. District Judge

DECISION AND ORDER

I. Introduction

Pro se plaintiff Larry B. Lindsey ("plaintiff") has filed a Complaint alleging the violation of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.*fn2 Plaintiff, who is presently confined at Rensselaer County Jail, has submitted an in forma pauperis application and inmate authorization form. See Dkt. Nos. 2, 3.

In his Complaint, plaintiff asserts claims arising out of several incidents which occurred from March through May, 2007 and which resulted in criminal charges being placed against plaintiff. Plaintiff claims that defendant Assistant District Attorney Krugler ("ADA Krugler") wrongfully prosecuted these criminal charges on the basis of accusatory instruments from a complaining witness who was not required to swear to those complaints before a judge. See Compl. (Dkt. No. 1) at 5-6. Rensselaer County District Attorney Patricia DeAngelis is named as a defendant based on her role as defendant Krugler's supervisor. Id. at 4. For a complete statement of plaintiff's claims, reference is made to the Complaint.

II. Discussion

Where a plaintiff seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court must determine whether the plaintiff has demonstrated sufficient economic to proceed without prepaying, in full, the $350.00 filing fee. The Court must also consider whether the causes of action stated in the complaint are, inter alia, frivolous or malicious, or if they fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1).

A. Economic Need

In this case, plaintiff has demonstrated economic need and has filed the inmate authorization form required in this District. See Dkt. No. 3. Accordingly, plaintiff properly commenced this action without prepayment of the filing fee.

B. Sufficiency of the Complaint

Turning to the second inquiry, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), as amended, directs that the Court:

(2) [S]hall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that ***

(B) the action ... (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Thus, there is a responsibility on the Court to determine that a complaint may be properly maintained in the District before it may permit a plaintiff to proceed with an action in forma pauperis.Id.;28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1).

Plaintiff seeks to maintain this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Section 1983 establishes a cause of action for "the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws" of the United States by persons acting under color of state law. German v. Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp., 885 F.Supp. 537, 573 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) (citing Wilder v. Virginia Hosp. Ass'n, 496 U.S. 498, 508 (1990) (quoting 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983)) (footnote omitted); see also Myers v. Wollowitz, No. 95-CV-0272, 1995 WL 236245, *2 (N.D.N.Y. Apr. 10, 1995) (McAvoy, ...


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.