The opinion of the court was delivered by: Seybert, District Judge
Incarcerated pro se plaintiff Peter Shue ("Plaintiff") has filed a Complaint against defendants United States of America, Assistant Attorneys Mark Wasserman and Stephen King, Agent John McKenna and Clerk of Court Robert C. Heinemann purporting to allege violation of his Constitutional rights protected by 42 U.S.C. § 1983, accompanied by an application to proceed in forma pauperis. For the reasons discussed below, the Plaintiff's federal claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and state law claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
According to the Complaint, Plaintiff was arrested on March 21, 1995 by federal agents concerning the sale of cocaine. Plaintiff was indicted on April 5, 1995 and Plaintiff was "superceded on October 12, 1995 and February 28, 1996." (Compl. at ¶ 2). The Complaint states that Defendants Wasserman, King and Heinemann "gave false information to the Court", they "conspired to submit fraudulent superceded indictments to the Court" and "the Grand Jury never issued said indictments required by the law." (Compl. at ¶ 7). Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Wasserman and King knew that Defendant McKenna "was a prior target of criminal conduct... [and was] disbanded from the Courts, and refus[ed] to allow the Plaintiff to inquire into the character and prior conduct of Defendant Agent John McKenna." (Compl. at ¶¶ 8, 13).
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff claims that his Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel, his Fifth Amendment guarantee of Due Process and the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against the infliction of cruel and unusual punishment were violated by the Defendants. (Compl. at ¶¶ 21-23). Although difficult to discern, Plaintiff also appears to claim that the Defendants violated the RICO statute, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962, 1964, and conspired to violate Plaintiff's civil rights under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985, 1986 and 1988. Finally, Plaintiff purports to allege state law tort claims of intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress.
Plaintiff seeks "one hundred billion" dollars in damages to compensate him for the alleged "emotional damage and emotional distress intentionally... and negligently inflicted by Defendants on the Plaintiff." (Compl. at page 10 and ¶ 19).
I. In Forma Pauperis Application
Having reviewed Plaintiff's declaration in support of his application to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court finds that he is qualified to commence this action without prepayment of the filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Accordingly, Plaintiff's request for permission to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED.
II. The Prison Litigation Reform Act
The 1996 Prison Litigation Reform Act, codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1915, requires a district court to dismiss 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); 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) & (b); Abbas v. Dixon, 480 F.3d 636, 639 (2d Cir. 2007). The Court is required to dismiss the action as soon as it makes such a determination. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).
It is axiomatic that pro se complaints are held to less stringent standards than pleadings drafted by attorneys and the Court is required to read the Plaintiff's pro se Complaint liberally and interpret it raising the strongest arguments it suggests. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 167 L.Ed. 2d 1081 (2007); Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9 101 S.Ct. 173, 66 L.Ed. 2d 163 (1980); Pabon v. Wright, 459 F.3d 241, 248 (2d Cir. 2006); McEachin v. McGuinnis, 357 F.3d 197, 200 (2d Cir. 2004) ("[W]hen the plaintiff proceeds pro se,... a court is obliged to construe his pleadings liberally, particularly when they allege civil rights violations."). Moreover, at this stage of the proceeding, the Court assumes the truth of the allegations in the Complaint. See Hughes, 449 U.S. at 10; Koppel v. 4987 Corp., 167 F.3d 125, 127 (2d Cir. 1999).