United States District Court, E.D. New York
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
K. CHEN United States District Judge:
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.
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.
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.) 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.
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.)
only named defendant in both actions is the New York City
Police Department. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages in each
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.)
Standard of Review
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
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).