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.

Ali v. Erie County Dep't of Social Services Home Energy Assistance Program

January 28, 2008

MUHAMMAD ALI A/K/A JAMES WILLIAM EPPS, PLAINTIFF,
v.
ERIE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES HOME ENERGY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM (HEAP), NIAGARA MOHAWK AND FAIR HEARING SECTION OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF TEMPORARY AND DISABILITY ASSISTANCE, DEFENDANTS."



The opinion of the court was delivered by: William M. Skretny United States District Judge

DECISION AND ORDER

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Muhammad Ali, a/k/a James William Epps, filed this action pro se on March 12, 2004, seeking relief under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C.§ 1983), Title II of the American with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. §12132), the Racketeering Influence and Corrupt Organizations Act (18 U.S.C. §1961) and the federal criminal statute for theft and embezzlement (18 U.S.C. §641).

Upon initial screening under 28 U.S.C. §1915 (e) (2) (B), the Court liberally construed Plaintiff's Complaint to allege that (1) Defendants, Erie County Department of Social Services Home Energy Assistance Program ("Erie County HEAP") and New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance ("OTDA")*fn1 denied Plaintiff's 2004 application for emergency and regular HEAP benefits in violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 12132 and 1983, and (2) Defendants Timmons, Kensington-Bailey Neighborhood Housing Services, Inc. ("Kensington-Bailey") and John Conrad of Kensington-Bailey embezzled and stole money that Plaintiff had given to Timmons, his landlord, for payment of his January 2004 rent in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 641 and 1961. (Docket No. 6). It granted Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, dismissed Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Timmons, Kensington-Bailey, and Conrad because Plaintiff had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, and allowed Plaintiff's claims against Erie County HEAP and OTDA to proceed. (Ibid.)

In October, 2004, Defendants Niagara Mohawk and OTDA filed a Motion to Dismiss and a Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket Nos .12 and 15, respectively). On January 13, 2005, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Amend his Complaint. (Docket No. 26). Each of these motions was denied without prejudice on September 7, 2005, due to Plaintiff's confinement at Erie County Medical Center. (Docket No. 29). On March 19, 2007, after his release from the Erie County Medical Center, Plaintiff renewed his Motion to Amend the Complaint. (Docket. No. 32).*fn2 On March 22, 2007, only Defendant OTDA renewed its Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 33).*fn3

These motions are now pending this Court's decision. For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff's motion will be denied and OTDA's motion will be granted.

II. BACKGROUND

The Complaint alleges causes of action against Erie County HEAP and OTDA*fn4 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 12132 and 1983 involving the denial of Plaintiff's 2004 application for emergency and regular HEAP benefits. Plaintiff alleges that his HEAP benefits were denied "upon a conspiracy to obstruct justice under the color of law upon discrimination" . . . "and was further denied because [Plaintiff] hadchanged his religion from Christian to Islam" . . . and "so that the Involved Defendant(s) can use [Plaintiff's] HEAP benefits for campaign purpose upon a conspiracy to obstruct justice." (Docket No. 1, p. 4). There are no attendant facts asserted relative to these allegations.

A. The Motion to Amend

Plaintiff seeks to amend his Complaint to add the following defendants: Ku Klux Klan and Aryan Nation (purportedly located underground at the University of Buffalo Law/Health Science Library), Buffalo City Police Department, Denis Jackowiak, Special Investigations Division, Erie County Department of Social Services, Richard Harden, County of Erie Department of Social Services, and the Erie County Medical Center.

Plaintiff's motion papers are difficult to decipher, as they are "replete with fantastic and delusional scenarios." See e.g., Mecca v. U.S. Government, 2006 WL 2927157, *2 (E.D.N.Y. 2006), aff'd. 232 Fed. Appx. 66, 2007 WL 2389754 (2d Cir. 2007). As best as this Court can construe, Plaintiff claims that these parties should be added because they were equal participants in a myriad of conspiracies against him. Plaintiff further alleges that these conspiracies are in retaliation for Plaintiff filing a multi-billion dollar lawsuit against Erie County Medical Center and others in which he claims the proposed defendants offered parents $10,000. to allow them to inject their children with the AIDS virus and also alleges a murderous conspiracy to infect Plaintiff with the AIDS virus. Plaintiff suggests that this lawsuit is pending before the United States Supreme Court.

Plaintiff references two case numbers in his papers -- 04-CV-459 and 04-CV-540. These cases were filed in this district and involved substantially similar allegations as the ones in Plaintiff's current Motion to Amend. Both were dismissed by the Court sua sponte pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The docket reflects no appeals pending in these cases.

In his motion, Plaintiff also alleges that he is being retaliated against for kicking both eyes out of the head of an off duty police officer in self-defense in 1993 after the officer attacked him for refusing to engage in homosexual activities. Plaintiff also claims that the proposed parties are equal participants in supplying local bars with controlled substances and that the bars are extorted into filing false charges against Plaintiff for fear of losing their supply of controlled substances.

Defendants oppose the motion, to the extent that it attempts to supplement any claims against them, on the ground of undue delay. The responses, however, mostly refer to the 'renewed'dispositive motions which, as this Court explains in footnote 3, do not exist. Further, Defendant OTDA states that, to the extent that Plaintiff seeks to replace the parties with the proposed new defendants 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.