The opinion of the court was delivered by: Seybert, District Judge:
On January 30, 2012 incarcerated pro se plaintiff Allah Justice ("Plaintiff") filed his sixth in forma pauperis Complaint in this Court accompanied by an application to proceed in forma pauperis.*fn1 The instant Complaint purports to allege the violation of Plaintiff's civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against defendant Michael Sposato ("Sposato"), the Sheriff of the Nassau County Jail.
Upon review of Plaintiff's declaration in support of the application, the Court finds that Plaintiff's financial status qualifies him to file this action without prepayment of the filing fee. Accordingly, the application to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. However, for the reasons that follow, the Complaint is sua sponte dismissed for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
Plaintiff's brief handwritten Complaint submitted on the Court's civil rights complaint form alleges a single paragraph:
On January 14th 2012 while walking with another inmate as I was near the dormitory sink I lost my footing due to water being on the floor from the sink having a leak. This problem with the sink has been going for almost a month. When I lost my footing I fell into the eating table where the water had traveled to across the floor about four feet from the sink. I am having pains in my upper back, neck, lower back and legs. Michael Sposato is responsible for this matter [because] he is in charge of the Nassau County jail. Complaints were written to him about it. (Compl. at ¶ IV). Plaintiff alleges that he filed a grievance concerning the leaky sink and that, as a result, the sink was fixed on January 19, 2012. (Compl. at ¶ II). As a result of the fall, Plaintiff claims to have "problems walking, sleeping and resting comfortably" but acknowledges that he was seen by "medical" on January 24, 2102 and was prescribed pain medication. (Compl. at ¶ IV. A.). Plaintiff seeks to recover twenty ($20) million dollars. (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 determines 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). Therefore, Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.
II. Application of 28 U.S.C. § 1915
Section 1915 of Title 28 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); 1915A(b). The Court is required to dismiss the action as soon as it makes such a determination. See Id.
Courts are obliged to construe the pleadings of a pro se plaintiff liberally. Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant, 537 F.3d 185, 191 (2d Cir. 2008); McEachin v. McGuinnis, 357 F.3d 197, 200 (2d Cir. 2004). Moreover, at the pleadings stage of the proceeding, the Court must assume the truth of "all well-pleaded, nonconclusory factual allegations" in the complaint. Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 621 F.3d 111, 123 (2d Cir. 2010) (citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949--50, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (2009). However, a complaint must plead sufficient facts to "state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1974, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949 (citations omitted). ...