United States District Court, E.D. New York
Maria Guerrera Tooker, Plaintiff, Pro se, Flanders, NY.
For Defendant: No appearance.
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
Joanna Seybert, United States District Judge.
On September 10, 2014, pro se plaintiff Maria Guerrera Tooker (" Plaintiff" or " Tooker") filed a Complaint in this Court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (" Section 1983") and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § § 12101 et seq. (" ADA") against New York State Supreme Court Justice Patrick Leis, II[I] (" Judge Leis" or " Defendant"), accompanied by an application to proceed in forma pauperis.
Upon review of the declaration in support of the application to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court finds that Plaintiff is qualified to commence this action without prepayment of the filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 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 WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § § 1915(e) (2)(B)(ii)-(iii).
Plaintiff's Complaint seeks to recover monetary damages against Judge Leis, sued in his official and individual capacity, as well as to compel a criminal prosecution against him for " fra[u]d upon the court." (Compl. at 2, ¶ 8.) According to Plaintiff, Judge Leis is presiding over an on-going civil trial brought against Plaintiff by her father in New York State Supreme Court, Suffolk County, under index number 24429/2010. (Compl. ¶ ¶ 10, 13.) Though hardly a model of clarity, the Court understands that the gravamen of Plaintiff's Complaint here is her dissatisfaction with the manner in which Judge Leis is presiding over the underlying state court trial, including his rulings therein. The Complaint is largely conclusory and often lacking in factual support for Plaintiff's broad accusations. For example, Plaintiff alleges that Judge Leis's " behavior has been a hurculean [sic] of violations of my rights" and that " his court is nothing more that a theatrical play." (Compl. ¶ 13.) Plaintiff alleges that Judge Leis has " committed a FRAD [sic] ON THE COURT" and has ignore[d] my evidence and preclude[d] it from the record. (Compl. ¶ ¶ 8, 10.) Plaintiff further claims that Judge Leis " tampered" with witnesses " stepped off the bench on many occasions and acted as counsel [for the witnesses against Plaintiff.]" (Compl. ¶ ¶ 17-18, 46.)
With regard to her ADA claim, Plaintiff alleges that she " suffers from PTSD steming [sic] from being a victim of violations of the HOBBS ACT." (Compl. ¶ 13.) Plaintiff also claims to have a " nurological [sic] disorder that causes poor circulation in my legs" and suffers from an unspecified " medical condition in my foot which causes me pain if I stand for a long period of time." (Compl. ¶ 21.) Plaintiff alleges that her neurological condition causes her " to have to shake [her] leg." (Compl. at ¶ 30.) According to Plaintiff, she requested permission from Judge Leis to sit during her questioning of witnesses due to her physical restrictions and that her request was denied for the first three days of trial. (Compl. ¶ ¶ 28, 30, 35.) Plaintiff further claims that Judge Leis ridiculed her and " communicated his belief that I was perpetrating a hoax on the court" in that Judge Leis threatened to hold Plaintiff in contempt of court if she made " leg movements" or did any more " twirling" or " dancing" during trial. (Compl. ¶ ¶ 32, 35, 40-41.)
As a result of the foregoing, Plaintiff claims that Judge Leis has violated her First Amendment rights as well as her rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 for which she seeks to recover an unspecified sum of compensatory and punitive damages for the " pain and suffering, humiliation, mental anguish, emotional distress, and loss of enjoyment of life sustained by [P]laintiff" together with costs, interest and attorneys fees. (Compl. at 20-22.) Plaintiff also demands that a prosecution against Judge Leis be commenced due to his " fraud upon the court." (Compl. at 20.)
I. In Forma Pauperis Application
Upon review of Plaintiff's declaration in support of her application to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court finds that Plaintiff is qualified to commence this action without prepayment of the filing fees. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). ...