Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.

Gelish v. Social Security Administration

September 17, 2010


The opinion of the court was delivered by: Seybert, District Judge


On August 9, 2010, pro se plaintiff Steven W. Gelish ("Plaintiff") filed a Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343, 1346(b), 1391(e)(2), 1402(b) and 2671-80 against the Defendants. Plaintiff did not pay the $350.00 filing fee, nor did he file a request to proceed in forma pauperis. However, Plaintiff also filed on August 9, 2010 two other Complaints which were assigned docket numbers 10-CV-3636 (JS)(ETB) and 10-CV-3714 (JS) (ETB), respectively. The Complaint assigned docket number 10-CV-3636 (JS)(ETB) was accompanied by a request to proceed in forma pauperis and that application was granted by Order dated September 9, 2010. See 10-CV-3636 (JS)(ETB), Order, dated September 9, 2010, Seybert, D.J. Given that the application to proceed in forma pauperis was filed on the same day as the instant Complaint, albeit in a different case, the Court will deem the in forma pauperis application filed there to also be included in this docket and is granted. However, for the reasons that follow, the Plaintiff's Complaint is sua sponte dismissed with prejudice.*fn1


The instant Complaint is incomprehensible. By way of background, on May 5, 2010, Plaintiff filed two in forma pauperis pro se complaints that each alleged a variety of wrongdoing related to the death of his mother. The first action was brought against North Shore Long Island Jewish Hospice Care Rehab Center and the Parker Jewish Institute Community Hospice Program and was assigned to District Judge Joseph Bianco under docket number 10-CV-2021. The second complaint was brought against "President Barracks O'bama", Vice President Joseph Biden, White House Assistant Michael McNulty, the Department of the Treasury, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Department of Justice, Attorney General Eric Holder, FBI Director Robert Nardoza, United States Attorney General's Office, Governor David Patterson, Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, New York City Criminal Court, New York County District Attorney Cyrus Vance, Jr., Queens City Council Representatives Grace Meng, John Liu and Peter Vallone, Jr., City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, Nassau County District Attorney Kathleen Rice, Assistant District Attorney Warren Thurer, the Queens District Attorney's Office, the New York Police Department and the "Fraudulent Officialdom of Internal Intel laptop digital cyberterrorism." This action was also assigned to Judge Bianco under docket number 10-CV-2022.

Judge Bianco granted Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis in each of the earlier actions and sua sponte dismissed the complaints without prejudice. See Dkt. No. 10-CV-2021 (JFB), Order, dated May 6, 2010, Bianco, D.J.; Dkt. No. 10-CV-2022(JFB), Order, dated May 6, 2010.*fn2 In an "abundance of caution," Judge Bianco permitted Plaintiff to re-plead in an attempt to assert a federal claim in each of these cases and directed that such amended pleadings be filed by June 5, 2010. Id. Judge Bianco warned that the cases would be dismissed absent an amended complaint. Id. Rather than file an amended complaint in either case, Plaintiff submitted a letter dated June 1, 2010 with various attachments in Docket No. 10-CV-2021 (JFB) that Judge Bianco liberally construed as an Amended Complaint.

Upon review of Plaintiff's June 1 submission, Judge Bianco again concluded that the Court lacked both diversity and federal question subject matter jurisdiction to hear Plaintiff's wrongful death claims or any other state law claim regarding the death of Plaintiff's mother and that the "Amended Complaint" otherwise failed to give notice of a claim. Judge Bianco also determined that any further attempts by Plaintiff to re-plead would be futile and dismissed the case without prejudice to Plaintiff attempting to bring any state law claims in state court. See Dkt. No. 10-CV-2021 (JFB), Order, dated June 15, 2010, Bianco, D.J. With regard to Dkt. No. 10-CV-2022 (JFB), by Order dated June 16, 2010, Judge Bianco sua sponte dismissed the Complaint without prejudice under the Court's inherent power for failure to prosecute under Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Dkt. No. 10-CV-2022 (JFB), Order, dated June 15, 2010, Bianco, D.J. The instant Complaint followed.*fn3


The instant Complaint is nonsensical. Plaintiff's fourteen page typed Complaint is labeled as a "FELONY COMPLAINT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED OXYMORON SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION'S FELONIES" and largely cites and quotes various unrelated legal authorities. For example, after stating that the action is brought pursuant to "(1) Civil Rights Act of (28 U.S.C. § 1343); (2) Federal Tort Claims Act of (28 U.S.C. § 2671-80); (28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)); (28 U.S.C. § 1331); (28 U.S.C. § 1402(b)); 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(2)," Plaintiff alleges that pursuant to; (1) Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Laws and penal Statutes of Rule 3., 3.16; 3.17; 3.18; F.R. Crim. Pro. Rule 7 to defer for indictment by Federal prosecutor; on the accusatory grounds of the factual evidence of the Obstruction of Justice CV-10-2021 & CV-10-2022 Filing., under TITLE 18 > PART II > CHAPTER 203 > §3060 §3060. Preliminary examination; and New York State Criminal Procedure laws, Criminal Penal Laws, and Codes; CPL Section §-100.05.; §-100.15; Commencing an action; to the Eastern District prosecutor for an injunction for criminal indictments, warrants of arrest pre-discovery subpoenas pursuant to §-110.10; §-110.10(2) of factual evidence discovery>> {{ Hereto annexed, See exhibits of the OSC to reschedule hearing, of the perverting, obstruction of Title XVI of the Social Security Act 1611, SSI Program, that was ignored, unfiled and unreplied, too. A contempt violations.; See Exhibit F1-#F.-1}-I-Facsimile of fraudulent application processing date receipt.; #F.-1}-II Facsimile of denied SSI Benefits/Application S.S. Reply correspondence of the origincal CV-10-2022, OSC/TRO Affidavit in support}, it is imperative, you are hereby compelled to docket this Felony Complaint of multiple counts of felonies for investigation/indictments and prosecution to the defendants under the aforesaid [ ] laws . . . .

Compl. at ¶ III. Plaintiff next alleges that the laws he cited provide the courts prosecuting powers with or without input or assistance from officials or district attorneys/prosecutors to the People of the State of New York; a citizen; claimant;

Pro-Se Esquire/unbarred attorney to prosecute under the aforesaid F.R. Crim-Pro. & CPL's.

Compl. at ¶ III. (emphasis in original). The Complaint continues in this fashion throughout paragraph IV and purports to begin its "accusatory statements of substantiating attributing factual statements . . . " at paragraph V:

Hereby entreat the court to take notice of, I, as the plaintiff/complainant, unfortunately the victim of Jeffrey Dahmer conscience type, Oxymoron Government, too. In my past fossil life, of this life, I was from youth entrapped and deceived by a real fake Italini culture thing oxymoron government operation. [This youth tainting, good normal life godly right, discourse alone, the defendants are liable for 100% lifetime recompensing pecuniary damages relief sought. . . .

These oxymoron officialdom criminalities tort escalated into multiple counts of criminal offenses upon which metastasized to the aforelisted defendants partes of the Social Security Administration 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.