Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Horicianu v. Cross

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK


September 27, 2010

FLORIN HORICIANU, PRO SE, PLAINTIFF,
v.
JAMES CROSS; JERRY MARTINEZ; ROCKY DOWD; THOMAS GOMEZ; HECTOR SUAREZ; JANE DOE 1-100; JOHN DOE 1-100, DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dora L. Irizarry United States District Judge

SUMMARY ORDER

DORA L. IRIZARRY, United States District Judge

Plaintiff Florin Horicianu filed this action pro se on September 3, 2010.*fn1 The Court grants plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). However, issuance of a summons and service of the complaint are held in abeyance because, for the reasons discussed below, plaintiff is granted thirty (30) days from the date of this Order, i.e., by October 27, 2010, to file an amended complaint. For the convenience of plaintiff, and in light of his pro se status, instructions on how to amend a complaint are attached to this Order.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

In reviewing plaintiff's complaint, the court is mindful that, "a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B), a district court shall dismiss an in forma pauperis action where it is satisfied that 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." Moreover, a plaintiff must establish that the court has subject matter jurisdiction. Rene v. Citibank NA, 32 F. Supp. 2d 539, 541-42 (E.D.N.Y. 1999).

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff's claims cannot proceed as defendants will be unable to meaningfully respond to the instant complaint. Plaintiff states that "[m]any BOP employees are making the life of inmates worse than the life of animals in the zoo." (Compl. at 1.) Plaintiff further alleges that "defendants opened, in fifteen separate occasions, the [p]laintiff's legal mail without the [p]laintiff's knowledge and consent . . . ." (Compl. at 2.) Plaintiff seeks $2 million in monetary damages. (Compl. at 4.) The Bureau of Prisons Inmate Locator website indicates that plaintiff was released from custody on September 4, 2008. See http://www.bop.gov/iloc2/InmateFinderServlet?. However, plaintiff does not allege what correctional facility he was housed in when the events he complains of took place, when the alleged violations of his rights occurred, or the dates of his incarceration.

Pursuant to Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, plaintiff must provide a short, plain statement of claim against each defendant named so that they have adequate notice of the claims against them. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). Plaintiff must provide facts sufficient to allow each defendant to have a fair understanding of what the plaintiff is complaining about and to know whether there is a legal basis for recovery. Twombly v. Bell, 425 F.3d 99, 106 (2d Cir. 2005) ("fair notice" is "'that which will enable the adverse party to answer and prepare for trial, allow the application of res judicata, and identify the nature of the case so that it may be assigned the proper form of trial.'") (quoting Simmons v. Abruzzo, 49 F.3d 83, 86 (2d Cir. 1995)).

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, in light of this court's duty to liberally construe pro se complaints, plaintiff is granted thirty (30) days from the date of this Order, i.e., by October 27, 2010, to file an amended complaint. Cruz v. Gomez, 202 F.3d 593 (2d Cir. 2000). Plaintiff is directed that his amended complaint must comply with Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Should plaintiff elect to file an amended complaint, plaintiff is directed to name as proper defendants those individuals who have some personal involvement in the actions he alleges in the amended complaint. In addition, he must set forth the factual allegations to support his claim against each named defendant and the dates and locations of all relevant events. Plaintiff is advised that any amended complaint he files will completely replace the original complaint. The amended complaint must be captioned, "Amended Complaint," and shall bear the same docket number as this Order.

For the convenience of plaintiff, and in light of his pro se status, instructions on how to amend a complaint are attached to this Order. If plaintiff fails to amend his complaint by October 27, 2010, as directed by this Order, and/or the amended complaint fails to correct the deficiencies of the instant complaint or otherwise fails to satisfy pleading or jurisdictional requirements, the complaint will be dismissed. The issuance of a summons and service of the instant complaint are held in abeyance pending the filing of an amended complaint. The court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of any appeal. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438 (1962).

SO ORDERED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.