Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Thomas D. Briel v. Cindy D'amber

August 2, 2012

THOMAS D. BRIEL, PLAINTIFF,
v.
CINDY D'AMBER, ESQ., NASSAU COUNTY, NASSAU COUNTY LEGAL AID SOCIETY, DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Seybert, District Judge:

ORDER

On July 17, 2012, pro se plaintiff Thomas D. Briel ("Plaintiff") filed a Complaint alleging the violation of his civil rights against his Legal Aid attorney Cindy D'Amber Esq., who is alleged to have represented him in his underlying criminal case, Nassau County, and the Nassau County Legal Aid Society (collectively "Defendants"), accompanied by an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Upon review of the 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 fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Accordingly, Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. However, for the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff's Complaint is sua sponte dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B); 1915A(b).

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff's brief handwritten Complaint, submitted on the Court's Section 1983 form, alleges the following in its entirety:

Cindy D'Amber has violated my Civil Rights by misrepresentation in the Due Process of Law and The Equal Protection of Law. Along with Cindy D'Amber's assosiates [sic] from the Legal Aid Society. Liabilities of Failure to protect my 5th, 6th, 8th and 14th Amendments. Everyone is liable [f]or these actions for the Civil Rights that are required to Protect there [sic] clients confidentiality and their Due Process of Law, Equal Protection of Law and the Assistance of Counsel. They have even told my wife I'd be home already. Thats [sic] Cruel and Unusual Punishment as well.

Compl. at ¶ IV. As a result, Plaintiff claims to have suffered "Mental Anguish; Lose [sic] of Weight Stress, Lose [sic] of Sleep, Can't eat, etc." and seeks to recover one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00). Compl. at ¶¶ IV.A, V.

DISCUSSION

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 application to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED.

II. The Prison Litigation Reform Act

The 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, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 167 L. Ed. 2d 1081 (2007) (citing Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106, 97 S. Ct. 285, 50 L. Ed. 2d 251 (1976)); Chavis v. Chappius, 618 F.3d 162, (2d Cir. 2010), and to construe them "'to raise the strongest arguments'" suggested. Chavis, 618 F.3d at 170 (quoting Harris v. City of New York, 607 F.3d 18, 24 (2d Cir. 2010)). 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, 124 (2d Cir. 2010) (citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949-50, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (2009)); see also Jackson v. Birmingham Board of Education, 544 U.S. 167, 171, 125 S. Ct. 1497, 161 L. Ed. 2d 361 (2005).

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). While "detailed factual allegations" are not required, "[a] pleading that offers 'labels ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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