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.

Vernon H. andrews v. Dennis and Debrah Rowland

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK


November 9, 2011

VERNON H. ANDREWS, PLAINTIFF,
v.
DENNIS AND DEBRAH ROWLAND, JACK GOLDBERG, AND BOB DE STEFANO, DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Thomas J. McAVOY Senior U.S. District Judge

DECISION AND ORDER

Pro se Plaintiff Vernon H. Andrews commenced this action on September 27, 2011 by the filing of a form civil rights complaint, along with an application to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP"). By Decision and Order, dated October 17, 2011, Dkt. No. 5, the Court granted Plaintiff permission to proceed IFP, but dismissed Plaintiff's Complaint with leave to replead. Presently before the Court for review is Plaintiff's Amended Complaint.

As noted in the Court's previous Decision and Order, the basis for Plaintiff's claim was not clear from the sparse allegations in his Complaint, and the attachments thereto provided little elucidation. From that pleading it appeared that the Defendants formerly employed the Plaintiff and that he claims that Defendants violated his rights by overworking him. See generally Complaint (Dkt. No. 1). As relief in his Complaint, Plaintiff seeks "2 million to each person." Upon conducting the required review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e),*fn1 the Court concluded that, even when liberally construed, the Complaint did not allege a discernible cause of action. Accordingly, the Court found that dismissal of the Complaint was required under Section 1915(e) on the grounds that Plaintiff had failed to state a cause of action which was plausible on its face and that his claims were frivolous. Dkt. No. 5.

Unfortunately, Plaintiff's Amended Complaint suffers from the same fatal deficiencies as his original pleading. In his most recent filing, Plaintiff seems to have changed his allegations to a limited extent. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint still asserts that he was overworked by Defendants, dating back to 1994, and apparently as a result became mentally ill, and also demands $2 million in damages. See generally Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 6). That pleading, unlike his original filing, also demands, "would you please get me to stop working for them. I cannot do it. I have been going to Alcoholics Anonymous every day because of this 'I hope it helps' since 1997", and "work at home from now on. law if you get sick at work they cannot fire you. They all made me sick at work!" Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 6) pp. 3-4. The basis for Plaintiff's claims remains indiscernible. As a result, for the reasons set forth in its previous Decision and Order, the Court has concluded that the Amended Complaint must be dismissed.

WHEREFORE, it is hereby ORDERED, that Plaintiff's Amended Complaint is dismissed without prejudice; ORDERED, that the Clerk serve a copy of this Order on the Plaintiff by regular mail.


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.