United States District Court, E.D. New York
Johnny Caldwell, Plaintiff, Pro se, Fitzgerald, GA.
For Defendants: No appearances.
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
Joanna Seybert, United States District Judge.
On September 8, 2014, then-incarcerated pro se plaintiff Johnny Caldwell (" Plaintiff") filed an in forma pauperis Complaint in this Court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (" Section 1983") against Suffolk County Assistant District Attorneys Lotoya James (" A.D.A. James") and Rosa Romeo (" A.D.A. Romeo"), as well as the current Chief Clerk of the Suffolk County District Court, Frank Tropea (" Tropea"), and a former Chief Clerk of the Suffolk County District Court, Victor V. Rossomano (" Rossomano" and collectively, " Defendants"), accompanied by an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff seeks to sue all of the Defendants in their individual and official capacities.
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), 1915A(b).
Plaintiff's sparse handwritten Complaint, submitted on a Section 1983 complaint form, alleges, in its entirety:
On and about April 26th and August 26th, 2013, while submitting paperwork (motions) to the unified Court system in Suffolk County New York the plaintiff did demand certain paperwork from the District Attorneys office, which was never turned over to the plaintiff in his Criminal Court/Superior Court proceeding from the above mentioned date to present along with the several Court Clerks, several motions that were sent to the Court for processing and were returned to sender or denied and never forwarded to the Judge's Chambers for consideration and to the present time of this claim, which violated the plaintiffs 14th Amendment rights to have equal protection of the law, Nor deny any person within its Jurisdiction of the Laws or due process of Law.
(Compl. at 3-4.) Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff alleges three causes of action. The First Cause of Action, in its entirety, alleges that:
The plaintiff seeks and demands monetary damage relief from the defendants for the violation of his 14th Amendment Right due process of law as well as his guaranteed 8th Amendment Right as a pre-trial detainee to be free from cruel and unusual punishment to be inflicted in a court of law. The District Attorneys Office in conjunction with several court clerks, withheld and deprived the plaintiff access to the Court when mailing and demanding verbally through his attorney and the United States Postal Service several request and motions to be sent to the Judges Chambers for consideration to no avail. The plaintiff demands Two Million Dollars.
(Compl. at 5-6.) The Second Cause of Action, in its entirety, alleges that:
The plaintiff demands puntive damages from the defendants for violations of his guaranteed Civil Constitutional Rights under the 14th, 8th, and 4th Amendments to be free in his person, property, papers and effects to be be from cruel and unusual Punishment to be deprived of any life, liberty or property without Due Process of the Law. The plaintiff demands Two Million Dollars.
(Compl. at 7.) Finally, as a Third Cause of Action, Plaintiff alleges that:
The plaintiff seeks compensatory damage relief from each defendant A.D.A. Latoya James, A.D.A. Rosa Romeo, Court Clerks Frank L. Tropea, and Court Clerk Victor V. Rossomano, for the malicious and wanton infliction of pain, duress, and hardship bestewed on the plaintiff for the malfeasance, nonfeasance acts to the plaintiffs, charather as well as the violations of his guaranteed Contitutional Rights to be afforded due process and the equal protection of the Law under the 14th Amendment, as the defendants denied the plaintiff access to the Courts via mail, motions, ect. As a result it has caused duress and hardship. The plaintiff demands ...