The opinion of the court was delivered by: Seybert, District Judge:
On March 27, 2013, incarcerated pro se plaintiff Rodney Wiggins ("Plaintiff") filed a pro se Complaint in this Court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ("Section 1983") against Carlos Figueroa #6467 ("Figueroa"), Brian Ferrick # 2819 ("Ferrick"), #515 ("#515") and Sheriff Vincent F. DeMarco ("Sheriff DeMarco") (collectively, "Defendants"), accompanied by an application to proceed in forma pauperis. On April 1, 2013, the Court sent Plaintiff a Notice of Deficiency advising Plaintiff that he must file a Prisoner Authorization Form if he wanted to proceed with his case. On April 18, 2013, Plaintiff filed his Prisoner Authorization Form, dated April 14, with the Court.
Upon review of the declaration in support of the application to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court determines that the Plaintiff's financial status qualifies him to commence this action without prepayment of the $350.00 filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a); 1915(a)(1). Therefore, Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. However, for the reasons that follow, the Complaint is sua sponte dismissed in part.
Plaintiff's brief, handwritten Complaint submitted on the Court's Section 1983 complaint form is difficult to read. As the Court can best discern, Plaintiff alleges that on March 7, 2013, following an appearance in county court, Plaintiff was in an elevator restrained by hand cuffs, leg irons, and a belly strap with two padlocks.*fn1 (Compl. ¶ IV.) Figueroa, whom the Plaintiff identifies as a court officer, accompanied Plaintiff in the elevator, as did Ferrick. (Id.)
According to Plaintiff, he asked Figueroa for the date of his next court appearance. (Id.) Figueroa did not answer Plaintiff's question, but allegedly instructed Plaintiff in a "high tone" to face the wall. (Id.) Plaintiff states that he turned around and started to giggle. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that he was pulled down to the floor by his leg irons, hitting his face on the floor. (Id.) He claims that Ferrick was holding him down and that Figueroa repeatedly punched Plaintiff in the face. (Id.) Plaintiff claims that at some point, Figueroa's partner grabbed Figueroa, giving Plaintiff time to comment that Figueroa thinks he is a "big guy" because he was beating someone who could not fight back. (Id.) After that comment, Figueroa allegedly started punching Plaintiff again, causing Plaintiff's nose to bleed.
As a result, Plaintiff claims that his nose was swollen and bled heavily, that his eye swelled shut, and that he had "shirt burn marks" on his back. (Compl. ¶ IV.A.) Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages in the total sum of four million dollars ($4,000,000.00).
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), aff'd. 569 U.S. ----, --- S. Ct. ----, 2013 WL 1628935 (2013) (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 Atlantic 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, 556 U.S. at 679 (citations omitted). The plausibility standard requires "more than a sheer possibility that defendant has acted unlawfully." Id. at 678; accord ...