The opinion of the court was delivered by: Seybert, District Judge
On March 3, 2010, the pro se Plaintiff John T. Pickering-George (adopted) John R. Daley, Jr., ("Plaintiff") filed his Complaint against the Defendants, Brookhaven (N.Y.) Center, Sandy Pacello, Site Coordinator, Wage and Investment Director-Field Accounts Mgt., Ruben D. Priegues, Compliance, and Disclosure Officer Cynthia J. Meals-Vitelli (collectively, "Defendants") accompanied by an application to proceed in forma pauperis.*fn1 For the reasons that follow, the Court grants Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) and sua sponte dismisses the Complaint without prejudice and with leave to file an Amended Complaint.
Plaintiff's handwritten, twelve page Complaint is incomprehensible. Plaintiff alleges that the Court's jurisdiction is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 656, 1361 and 1651(a) and states that his claims arise under the First, Fourth and Fourteenth Federal Constitutional Amendments. The balance of the Complaint is largely comprised of quotations from various federal statutes and case law. The only factual allegations that can be gleaned from the Complaint are set forth on the fourth and fifth pages as follows:
*[O]N THE (MONTH/DATE/YEAR) OF, 11/20/2009 THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION WAS SERVED ON THE NAMED ADMINISTRATION, THEE [sic] BROOKHAVEN (NY) CENTER, 1040 WAVERLY AVENUE, SITE COORDINATOR CENTER DIRECTOR: SANDY PACELLO., WAGE AND INVESTMENT CENTER DIRECTOR-FIELD ACCOUNTS MGT., AND OTHER ADMINISTRATIONS DEPARTMENTS IN, HOLTSVILLE, NEW YORK 11742, EXHIBIT: A, DATED:11/19/2009 (13) THIRTEEN PAGES IN TOTAL. IT WAS RECEIVED IN THE BROOKHAVEN (NY) CENTER, ON 11/24/2009 [A] RETURNED RECEIPT STAMPED OF SAID DATE. ENCLOSED ARE THE PHOTOCOPY OF POSTAL SERVICE, CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPT, AND PHOTOCOPY OF RETURN RECEIPT FOR MERCHANDISE, DOMESTIC RETURN RECEIPT.
. . . (PETITIONER) "DID NOT" RECEIVE ANY RESPONSE (90) NINETY DAYS HAVE PAST [sic] AFTER "FILING" THE REQUEST FOR THE APPLICATION, REGISTRATION, FEE AMOUNT, OF THE ENCLOSED MATTER. PRO SE PETITIONER "MOTIONS" FOR ATTORNEY FEES, "COSTS AND FEES", FOR FAILURE TO RESPOND, FOR THE SUM OF $25,000.00. . . . (Compl. at pages 4 and 5) (Emphasis in original). Plaintiff describes the remedy sought as follows:
TO HAVE ALL DOCUMENTS RELEASED TO PETITIONER IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICATION, REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS, ANNUAL REGISTRATION FEES OF EXCISE TAX REGISTRATION, OBTAINING [A] LISCENS [sic], MARIJUANA TAX ACT, REVENUE DISTRICT. DISBURSEMENT OF DOCUMENTS PURSUANT TO . . . FRCP. RULES. 45(A)(1)(A-D), (b)(1-3), (c)(2)(A)(B), (d)(1)(A)-(D), (2)(A)(B),(e), 28 U.S.C. § 656 SUBPOENAS, IN GENERAL, FORM ISSUANCE, SERVICE DUTIES IN RESPONDING TO SUBPOENA, CONTEMPT AGAINST (DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS)., FRCP RULE 65(d)(e) "INJUNCTIONS"., FRCP 70(a-e) AS AMENDED., FRCP RULE 81(a)(3)(f). * BECAUSE THE SOIRE FACIAS AND MANDAMUS ARE ABOLISHED IN CIVIL RULE PROCEEDINGS.
DISBURSEMENT OF ATTORNEY FEES, COSTS DEMAND, $25,000.00 TWENTY FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS, AGENCY FAILURE TO RESPOND WITHIN (90) DAYS, FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), . . . . 5 U.S.C. 552(A)(4)(E) & (F). (Compl. at page 7, ¶ IV.)(Emphasis in original).
A. In Forma Pauperis Application
Upon review of the Plaintiff's application, this Court finds that Plaintiff's financial status qualifies him to commence this action without prepayment of the filing fees. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Accordingly, Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.
B. Application Of 28 U.S.C. § 1915
Section 1915 of Title 28 requires a district court todismiss an in forma pauperis complaint if the action is frivolous or malicious; fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i-iii). The Court is required to dismiss the action as soon as it makes such a determination. See id.
Courts are obliged to construe the pleadings of a pro se plaintiff liberally. Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant, 537 F.3d 185, 191 (2d Cir. 2008); McEachin v. McGuinnis, 357 F.3d 197, 200 (2d Cir. 2004). If a liberal reading of the complaint "gives any indication that a valid claim might be stated," courts must grant ...