United States District Court, N.D. New York
Christian F. Hummel U.S. Magistrate Judge.
pro se Agnes Georges commenced this action on
November 13, 2017 with the filing of a complaint. Dkt. No. 1
(“Compl.). In lieu of paying this Court's filing
fee, plaintiff filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
(“IFP”). Dkt. No. 2. Plaintiff also filed a
Motion for Appointment of Counsel. Dkt. No. 3. After
reviewing plaintiff's IFP application, Dkt. No. 2, the
undersigned determines that plaintiff qualifies to proceed
IFP for purposes of filing.
1915(e) of Title 28 of the United States Code directs that,
when a plaintiff seeks to proceed IFP, “the court shall
dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . .
. the action or appeal (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii)
fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or
(iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune
from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
Thus, it is a court's responsibility to determine that a
plaintiff may properly maintain his complaint before
permitting him to proceed with his action. As plaintiff is
representing herself, the Court is to consider her claims
“liberally” and “interpret them ‘to
raise the strongest arguments that they suggest.'”
Cold Stone Creamery, Inc. v. Gorman, 361 F.
App'x 282, 286 (summary order) (quoting Brownell v.
Krom, 446 F.3d 305, 310 (2d Cir. 2006)).
complaint in this action consists of a form civil rights
complaint. Plaintiff states that each named defendant, who
she identifies as lawyers, “refuse to help me.”
Compl. at 1-2. It appears that plaintiff contacted all of
these defendants for some form of assistance, and was denied
such assistance. See id. She suggests that
these defendants are aware of a conspiracy involving Levy
Rathner, “a U.S. Gov Commander Chief” and the
police, but defendants “prefer to protect him not
me.” Id. at 2. It appears that plaintiff
sought to file a report with police about certain crimes
committed against her, but was not allowed to file a report
or provide an order of protection. Id. at 4.
Plaintiff has not named any police officer or police
department as a defendant in this action.
indicated above, plaintiff's complaint makes unexplained
references to “Levy Rathner, ” who is not a named
defendant, and also refers to a “crime” or a
“network, ” “corruption, stealing cards,
use fake ID, fake credit card, steal my identity, use them
for somebody else, a damage for life.” Compl. at 3.
Plaintiff provides that she “feel[s] unsafe wherever I
go, federal police keep follow [sic] me, I am an [sic]
spy.” Id. at 4. However, plaintiff does not
explain any of these allegations. Her complaint does not
detail to any degree how the named defendants were personally
involved in these alleged wrongs. Moreover, the complaint
does not explain how any of the named defendants violated any
federal law or any of her constitutional rights. To the
extent that plaintiff suggests that she sought legal
assistance from the named defendants, and that defendants
either declined to represent her or declined to prosecute
certain alleg ed crimes, a prosecutor's decision not to
prosecute a case or a lawyer's decision not to
represent an individual does not amount to a violation of the
law. Id. at 3. Plaintiff's complaint also does
not provide a clear demand for relief. Id. at 6.
guidelines are set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. Specifically, Rule 8 provides that a pleading
which sets forth a claim for relief shall contain, inter
alia, "a short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief."
See Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). “The purpose . . .
is to give fair notice of the claim being asserted so as to
permit the adverse party the opportunity to file a responsive
answer, prepare an adequate defense and determine whether the
doctrine of res judicata is applicable.”
Flores v. Graphtex, 189 F.R.D. 54, 54 (N.D.N.Y.
1999) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Rule
(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the
court's jurisdiction . . .;
(2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief; and
(3) a demand for the relief sought . . . .
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Although “[n]o technical form is
required, ” the Federal Rules make clear that each
allegation contained in the pleading “must be simple,
concise, and direct.” Id. at 8(d).
[a] party must state its claims or defenses in numbered
paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable to a single
set of circumstances. A later pleading may refer by number to
a paragraph in an earlier pleading. If doing so would promote
clarity, each claim founded on a separate transaction or
occurrence - and each defense other than a denial - must be
stated in a separate count or defense.
Civ. P. 10(b). This serves the purpose of "provid[ing]
an easy mode of identification for referring to a particular
paragraph in a prior pleading[.]" Flores, 189
F.R.D. at 54 (internal quotation marks and citations
omitted). A complaint that fails to comply with the pleading
requirements "presents far too a heavy burden in terms
of defendants' duty to shape a comprehensive defense and
provides no meaningful basis for the ...