United States District Court, E.D. New York
AZRACK, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6, 2016, incarcerated pro se plaintiff Abner
Morisset Jr. (“plaintiff”) filed a in forma
pauperis complaint in this Court against the County of
Nassau, Criminal Term Part 13, Supreme Court of the State of
New York (“NYS Supreme Court”); and Nassau County
District Attorney Madeline Singas (“DA Singas”
and together, “defendants”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 (“Section 1983”), alleging a
deprivation of his constitutional rights. Because plaintiff
did not filed the required Prisoner Litigation Reform Act
authorization form (“PLRA”) together with the
complaint, by Notice of Deficiency dated July 14, 2016 (the
“Notice”), plaintiff was instructed to complete
and return the enclosed PLRA within fourteen (14) days from
the date of the Notice. On July 21, 2016, plaintiff timely
filed the PLRA. The Court grants plaintiff's request to
proceed in forma pauperis and sua sponte
dismisses the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii-iii), 1915A(b) for the reasons that follow.
material allegations in the complaint are assumed to be true
for the purpose of this Order. See, e.g., Rogers
v. City of Troy, New York, 148 F.3d 52, 58 (2d Cir.
1998) (in reviewing a pro se complaint for sua sponte
dismissal, a court is required to accept the material
allegations in the complaint as true).
brief, handwritten complaint is submitted on the Southern
District of New York's Section 1983 complaint form and
alleges the following in its entirety:
On May 17, 2015 I was rearrested by the Nassau County
District Attorney's Office for the crime of Burg. 2nd
(140.25(2)). The crime that the D.A. accused me of happened
on Sept. 1st of 2104. Due to me being wrongfully
accused of said crime the Court put another bail on me for
$25, 000. At the time I was already on Rikers Iland fighting
a case Burg 3rd with a bail of $35, 000. At the
time Nassau County D.A. Office wrongfully accused me of this
crime I was in the process of bailing out but because of the
new bail of $25, 000 I was unable to get a chance to be their
when my Aunt was laid to rest.
(Compl. ¶ II.D.) As a result of the foregoing, plaintiff
claims to have suffered “emotional pain, suffering and
mental anguish” and seeks to recover a damages award in
the sum of $7.5 million. (Id. ¶¶ III, V.)
In Forma Pauperis Application
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 fee. 28 U.S.C. §
1915(a)(1). Therefore, plaintiff's application to proceed
in forma pauperis is granted.
Standard of Review
Prison Litigation Reform Act requires a district court to
screen a civil complaint brought by a prisoner against a
governmental entity or its agents and dismiss the complaint,
or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint is
“frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. §
1915A(b)(1). Similarly, pursuant to the in forma
pauperis statute, a court must dismiss an action if it
determines that it “(i) is frivolous or malicious, (ii)
fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or
(iii) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune
from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The
Court must dismiss the action as soon as it makes such a
determination. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
se submissions are afforded wide interpretational
latitude and should be held “to less stringent
standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.”
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per
curiam); see also Boddie v. Schnieder, 105 F.3d
857, 860 (2d Cir. 1997). In addition, the court is required
to read the plaintiff's pro se complaint
liberally and interpret it as raising the strongest arguments
it suggests. United States v. Akinrosotu, 637 F.3d
165, 167 (2d Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (citation
omitted); Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir.
Supreme Court has held that pro se complaints need
not even plead specific facts; rather the complainant
“need only give the defendant fair notice of what the .
. . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.”
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (internal
quotation marks and citations omitted); cf.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(e) (“Pleadings must be construed so as
to do justice.”). However, a pro se plaintiff
must still plead “enough facts to state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).
“A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff
pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citations omitted). The plausibility
standard requires “more than a sheer possibility that a
defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id. at 678.