Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Sardo v. Officer Ribaudo of 6Th Police Precinct

United States District Court, E.D. New York

February 5, 2015

ROSARIO JOSEPH LO SARDO, Plaintiff,
v.
OFFICER RIBAUDO of the 6th Police Precinct, SUFFOLK COUNTY 6TH POLICE PRECINCT, BARBARA J. FIALA, Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, and the STATE OF NEW YORK, Defendants.

Rosario Joseph Lo Sardo, pro se, Lake Grove, NY, for Plaintiff.

Defendants, No appearances.

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

JOANNA SEYBERT, District Judge.

On November 14, 2014, pro se plaintiff Rosario Joseph LoSardo ("Plaintiff") filed a Complaint in this Court against Suffolk County Police Officer Ribaudo ("P.O. Ribaudo"), the Sixth Police Precinct, the Commissioner of the Department of Motor Vehicles Barbara J. Fiala ("Commissioner Fiala"), and the State of New York (collectively, "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 is qualified 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 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)-(iii).

BACKGROUND[1]

Plaintiff's brief Complaint alleges the following facts, in their entirety:[2]

On March 8, 2014, I was driving down Middle Country Road headed for Pep Boys to fix my 2003 Grand Caravan Sport V6 3.3 liter which was then insured by Commercial General Insurance. The car was running ruff and hesitating when I saw heard a siren and flashing lights. I pulled over to the right shoulder of the road. Officer Ribaubo asked "Are you drunk", I said I was not, he then asked for my driving License, Registration, & Insurance. When he returned he said "You're a F**king Hippy" because of my long hair, and he said "I'm going to teach you a lesson". He told me "I'm writing you 3 summons: suspended license, suspended registrations, and no insurance". When I told him I was no Hippy and the fact I had insurance. He said "I know that but this will screw you up with the Motor Vehicles" Now I could not legally drive and could not get to my appointments and it was the end of my in-home hair dressing business that pay my bills. On June 9, 2014; Judge Barbara Dalli dismissed all of Officer Ribaudo's lies, but that didn't matter to the Motor Vehicles, they demanded I return my License Plates, driving License, and car registration. That would make the betrayal complete and my car, the only thing I own which thousands of dollars of my possessions in it. It would be declared abandoned and towed away.

(Compl. ¶ III.) As a result of the foregoing, Plaintiff seeks to have the Court "punish the guilty parties in the amount of One Million dollars." (Compl. ¶ V.) Plaintiff further claims that "[t]hey owe me a new car to replace my car that is rusted in-side and out, including the engine. A Salon and Spa in great location, [a] [h]ouse in the area, with an adjustable bed, and bathroom with walk-in bath and shower." (Compl. ¶ V.) Finally, Plaintiff seeks to have the Department of Motor Vehicles "dismiss all mon[e]t[a]ry claims" and "allow me to again buy car insurance." (Compl. ¶ V.)

DISCUSSION

I. In Forma Pauperis Application

Upon review of Plaintiff's 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 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 upon 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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.