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.

Moco v. New York City Police Department

United States District Court, E.D. New York

January 9, 2018

ROBERT MOCO, Plaintiff,
v.
NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendant. ROBERT MOCO, Plaintiff,
v.
NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendant.

         NOT PUBLICATION

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          PAMELA K. CHEN United States District Judge:

         Plaintiff Robert Moco, previously incarcerated at Riker's Island and recently transferred to the Central New York Psychiatric Center, filed four pro se civil rights actions against the New York City Police Department in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. All four cases subsequently were transferred to this district. Two of those cases, docketed as 17-CV-5245 and 17-CV05261, were dismissed by this Court's Order dated December 7, 2017. Moco v. New York City Police Department, No. 17-CV-5245, slip op. (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 7, 2017). With respect to these two remaining actions, the Court grants Plaintiff's applications to proceed in forma pauperis, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, but dismisses both cases, with leave to amend within thirty (30) days of this Order.

         BACKGROUND

         The instant complaints, though dated June 17, 2017 and June 18, 2017, both allege that they were delivered to prison authorities for mailing on July 12, 2017. The complaints were received in the Southern District on August 11, 2017 and transferred to this Court on September 7, 2017.

         In the complaint docketed as 17-CV-5608, Plaintiff alleges that on November 27, 2012 “[s]omeone who in the past I had problems with placed a gun and drugs in my vehicle.” (Complaint, Dkt. 1, at ECF 4.)[1] He alleges that police officers subsequently arrested him and searched his car. (Id.) He attaches arrest and charge information indicating that he was arraigned on November 28, 2012 in Queens County Criminal Court, Case Number 2012QN061687, and charged with criminal possession of weapons and controlled substances. (Id. at 7.) The document indicates that the charges were dismissed on August 6, 2013 after a grand jury returned a No True Bill on August 2, 2013. (Id. at 9.)

         In the complaint docketed as 17-CV-5611, Plaintiff alleges that police officers came to his residence on January 30, 2014, dragged him out of his home, and threw him into the snow. (Complaint, Dkt. 1, at 4.) He states that the officers told him that his landlord had filed a complaint against him. (Id.) He alleges that he was detained for three days and paid $1000 bail before the charges were dismissed on September 16, 2014. (Id.) He attaches the arrest and charge information sheet indicating that he was arraigned in Queens County Criminal Court, Case Number 2014QN005828, on a charge of criminal mischief on January 31, 2014 and that the charge was dismissed on September 16, 2014 on speedy trial grounds. (Id. at 7.)

         The only named defendant in both actions is the New York City Police Department. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages in each complaint.

         On December 11, 2017, the Court received a letter from Plaintiff dated December 5, 2017 (“December 11th Letter”). The letter provides an updated address for Plaintiff and states: “I would also like to adjust the case to be against the City of New York, the police officers (ie John Doe) and the witness (ie John Doe) who made the false accusations that led to my arrest.” (Dkt. 7.)

         DISCUSSION

         A. Standard of Review

         Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court must review the complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or from officers or employees thereof, to “identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint (1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). Pursuant to the in forma pauperis statute, the court must dismiss a complaint if it determines that the action is “(i) frivolous or malicious, (ii) fails to state a claim upon 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). Where it is clear from the face of the complaint that a claim is barred by the applicable statute of limitations, that claim is subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim. See Pino v. Ryan, 49 F.3d 51, 53 (2d Cir. 1995) (holding that a complaint can be dismissed on initial review based on an affirmative defense that appears on the face of the complaint.)

         The Court is mindful that “[a] document filed pro se is to be liberally construed, and a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). If a liberal reading of the complaint “gives any indication that a valid claim might be stated, ” the Court must grant leave to amend the complaint. See Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99, 112 (2d Cir. 2000).

         B. Statute ...


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.