United States District Court, E.D. New York
Anthony Brian Mallgren, Plaintiff, Pro se, Staten Island, NY.
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
MARGO K. BRODIE, United States District Judge.
On August 5, 2014, the Court dismissed a series of Complaints filed by Plaintiff Anthony Brian Mallgren, proceeding pro se, and granted him leave to file a single Amended Complaint in the above-captioned action regarding the circumstances of his involuntary commitment in a psychiatric facility. Plaintiff was also directed to show cause why he should not be barred from filing future complaints seeking to proceed in forma pauperis without leave of the Court. Plaintiff filed an " Affirmation Showing Cause," dated August 23, 2014 which was received by the Court on August 28, 2014. The Court received Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, dated September 1, 2014, on September 4, 2014.
For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff's Amended Complaint is dismissed and Plaintiff is hereby enjoined from filing new actions seeking in forma pauperis status without leave of the Court.
Plaintiff's extensive litigation history is recounted in this Court's July 25, 2014
Memorandum and Order in Mallgren v. N.Y. State Office of Atty. Gen., et al., No. 14-CV-2187, 35 F.Supp.3d 242, 2014 WL 3882468 (E.D.N.Y. July 25, 2014) (granting voluntary dismissal). He has filed a number of actions in Federal District Court relating to his January 17, 2014 involuntary commitment to South Beach Psychiatric Center, including the above-captioned action. The Court's August 5, 2014 Memorandum and Order in this action recounts the history of Plaintiff's numerous actions relating to the circumstances of Plaintiff's involuntary commitment. See Mallgren v. Burkholder, et al., No. 14-CV-2189, 2014 WL 3845223 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 5, 2014) (" August 5, 2014 Order" ).
In the August 5, 2014 Order, the Court found that Plaintiff's allegations regarding involuntary commitment, involuntary medical treatment and the conditions of his confinement, failed to state a plausible violation of the United States Constitution by a state actor, such that Plaintiff would be entitled to relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Furthermore, the Court found that Plaintiff's allegations regarding the confidentiality of his medical records failed to state a claim under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. In light of Plaintiff's pro se status, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to amend his Complaint to state a § 1983 claim in the first-filed action, No. 14-CV-2189. Plaintiff was instructed that this Complaint would completely replace all prior Complaints, and was directed (1) to include all of the allegations he wished to pursue relating to his involuntary commitment and treatment at South Beach Psychiatric Center, and (2) to name individual defendants who could be held personally liable for any alleged deprivation of his constitutional rights. Plaintiff was also ordered to show cause why he should not be barred from filing future complaints seeking to proceed in forma pauperis without leave of the Court.
On August 28, 2014, Plaintiff filed a one-page " Affirmation Showing Cause" with the Court. Plaintiff states that he has " little access to legal research materials and [is] still substantially under the effects of poverty," and requests that the Court " delay the injunction until the conclusion of these cases [challenging the conditions of his involuntary commitment.]" (Docket Entry No. 11, at 1.) He provided no additional information in response to the Court's order to show cause.
On September 4, 2014, the Court received Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. The Amended Complaint names as defendants several staff members at the South Beach Psychiatric Center, where Plaintiff has been involuntarily committed since January 17, 2014. However, the Amended Complaint does not include any allegations against any of the named Defendants.
The Amended Complaint first renews Plaintiff's previously dismissed claim related to his medical records. Plaintiff states that he was involuntarily committed to South Beach Psychiatric Center on or around January 17, 2014. (Docket Entry No. 12 (" Amend. Compl." ), at 3.) Plaintiff alleges that he submitted a request to review his records to Lori Abondolo in January, 2014, but that his request has not yet been fulfilled. ( Id.) The Amended Complaint asks: " Is it a violation of the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution to not fulfill a request to review and challenge the accuracy of materials contained within records, pursuant to New York Mental Hygiene Law § 33.16?" ( Id. at 2.) In two of Plaintiff's ...