The opinion of the court was delivered by: Joanna Seybert, U.S.D.J.
Presently pending before the Court is the Complaint of incarcerated pro se plaintiff Malquisua Mendez ("Plaintiff") brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ("Section 1983") accompanied by an application to proceed in forma pauperis. For the reasons that follow, the application to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED and the Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and Plaintiff is given leave to replead.
This is Plaintiff's third in forma pauperis Complaint filed in this Court since April 2010 against Defendant Sposato.*fn1
Plaintiff's brief handwritten Complaint alleges that, on June 18, 2010, he was leaving court on the court bus when "the court bus I was being transported in crashed into fire truck cousing [sic] me to sustain personal injuries." (Compl. at ¶ IV). According to the Complaint, Plaintiff received "laceracions [sic] to the face which cause severe head trauma, ribs are severly [sic] bruised making it hard to breath and my shoulder is damaged." (Id.). Plaintiff also alleges that his back and left knee were injured and that although he was "held in the medical unit/hospital for 2 hrs. . . they don't treat me medically at all." (Compl. at ¶¶ IV. and IV.A). As a consequence, Plaintiff seeks five million dollars for unspecified damages. (Compl. at ¶ V).
I. In Forma Pauperis Application
Upon review of Plaintiff's declaration in support of his application to proceed in forma pauperis, the 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 request to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED.
II. Application Of 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).