The opinion of the court was delivered by: Seybert, District Judge:
Plaintiff has brought a pro se action in this Court against Freeport police officer Michael P. Levine pursuant to Section 1983 purporting to allege violation of Plaintiff's Fourth Amendment right against the use of excessive force. Accompanying the Complaint is an application to proceed in forma pauperis. For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff's request for permission to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED but the Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice and Plaintiff is given leave to file an Amended Complaint in accordance with this Order.
According to the Complaint, on April 13, 2010, Plaintiff was allegedly "assaulted by a [sic] officer [Michael P. Levine] from the police department in Freeport. Nassau County police arrested me and injected me with something in the precint [sic]."
(Compl. at ¶ IV). Plaintiff claims after being injected "I briefly opened my eyes, I saw a police officer stitching a [sic] injury above the left eye that was caused by the police officer." Id. Furthermore, Plaintiff alleges that "the officers at the jail are taking my food and putting false charges against me, I'v [sic] been to (B Mu) [which is the box] and I am locked in my cell 22 hours a day for no reason." Id.
Plaintiff claims to have suffered ijury [sic] above the left eye and on top of the head. Blurred eye vision, sever [sic] headaches, menthal [sic] anguish, pain and suffering and constant nightmares and also deep depression and fear of my life, confusion, paranoia effects and thoughts of suicide. (Compl. at ¶ IV.A). Plaintiff seeks "justice" as well as $10 million in unspecified damages. (Compl. at ¶ V).
DISCUSSION I. In Forma Pauperis
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 fees. 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).
Section 1983 provides that: [e]very person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State. . . subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States. . . to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities ...