United States District Court, E.D. New York
Sundiata Evans, Plaintiff, Pro se, Riverhead, NY.
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
Sandra J. Feuerstein, United States District Judge.
On October 27, 2014, pro se plaintiff Sundiata Evans (" plaintiff") filed a complaint in this Court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (" Section 1983") against the Suffolk County Riverhead Sheriff Dept. (the " Sheriff's Department") and the Suffolk County Correctional Facility (the " Jail" and together with the Sheriff's Department, " defendants"), 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's financial status qualifies him to commence this action without prepayment of the 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 for failure to state a claim for relief 28 U.S.C. § § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 1915A(b)(1).
Plaintiff's complaint, submitted on the Court's Section 1983 form, alleges the following in its entirety:
On the approxamilty [sic] date and time of 4 am, date September 25th 2013. The incident arouse [sic] in the town of Riverhead. Assaulted by Officer Roxy (K-9 dog). The claimant was inside the deli, claimant came out of the bathroom in which the officer approached by way of gunpoint. Then claimant was thrown to the ground [sic] hand cuffed and visciously [sic] attack [sic] by Officer Roxy under the command of the officer. Also there was fellow Suffolk County Sheriff Officers present in the time of date [sic] allowing Officers Roxy (K-9 dog) bite claimant on my right arm visciously [sic] leaving the claimant bloody and in a state of shock to which his right are goes numb and encouring [sic] the claimant emotional disturb [sic] not being able to sleep. Only evidence inside store.
Upon being bitten by Officer Roxy (K-9 dog), [sic] I was taken to Peconic Bay where to the treatment I recieved [sic] was Iodine and bandage.
(Compl. at ¶ ¶ IV-IV.A.) For relief, plaintiff seeks to recover a monetary damages award of three hundred thousand dollars ($300, 000.00) " resulting from the physical, mental, emotional damages." (Id. at ¶ V.)
A. 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). Therefore, plaintiff s request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.
B. Application of 28 U.S.C. § 1915
Under the in forma pauperis statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), a district court must dismiss a complaint if it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. It is axiomatic that district courts are required to read a pro se complaint liberally, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 167 L.Ed.2d 1081 (2007) (citations omitted), and construe it " to raise the strongest arguments" suggested. Gerstenbluth v. Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, 728 F.3d 139, 142-43 (2d Cir, 2013) (quotations and citations omitted). Moreover, at the pleading stage, the Court must assume the truth of " all well-pleaded, nonconclusory factual allegations ...