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.

Vilimaa Trahan v. Suffolk County Correctional Facility

November 26, 2012

VILIMAA TRAHAN, PLAINTIFF,
v.
SUFFOLK COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, C.O. PHIL CAPOZZOLA, #1311, SGT. HORL, #5220, SHERIFF
VINCENT DEMARCO, C.O. CHRISTOPHER GARZADAS, #1170, DEFENDANTS.



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

ORDER

On August 27, 2012, incarcerated pro se plaintiff Vilimaa Trahan ("Plaintiff") filed a Complaint in this Court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the defendants, Suffolk County Correctional Facility, C.O. Phil Capozzola, #1311, Sgt. Horl, #5220, Sheriff Vincent DeMarco and C.O. Christopher Garzadas, #1170 (together, the "Defendants") accompanied by an application to proceed in forma pauperis and an application for the appointment of pro bono counsel.*fn1

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 against Sheriff DeMarco and the Suffolk County Correctional Facility pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A. The application for the appointment of pro bono counsel is denied at this time.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff's brief handwritten Complaint submitted on the Court's civil rights complaint form alleges that he was beaten by C.O. Phil Capozzola and unidentified "S.E.R.T. Officers" on May 9, 2012 and on July 17, 2012. (Compl. at ¶ IV.) Plaintiff claims that Sgt. Horl participated in the July 17th beating. (Id.) Plaintiff also claims that, on August 18, 2012, C.O. Christopher Garzagas "used excessive force" in that he "punch[ed] me 10 times in my face after I was sprayed with pepper spray. . . ." (Id.)

As a result of these assaults, Plaintiff claims to suffer migraine headaches, has an injury to his eye, has a sprained left leg and damaged nerves in his wrists, as well as abrasions and a swollen face. Plaintiff describes that he "went to Peconic Bay Outside Hospital" following the May and July beatings where he was treated. According to the Plaintiff, he was treated by "medical" for injuries he allegedly sustained from the August beating. (Compl. at ¶ IV. A. and attachments thereto.) Plaintiff seeks to recover two (2) million dollars in compensatory and punitive damages. (Compl. at ¶ 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 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). ...


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.