United States District Court, W.D. New York
ELIZABETH A. WOLFORD UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
action, pro se Plaintiff Andre Juste
("Plaintiff) seeks $40, 000, 000.00 in damages from
United States District Judge Lawrence J. Vilardo, United
States Magistrate Judge Jeremiah J. McCarthy, Assistant
United States Attorney Gail Mitchell, and the Unites States
Attorney's Office for the Western District of New York
(collectively, "Defendants") for actions taken in
handling Plaintiffs legal proceedings in the Western District
of New York. (Dkt. 1). Plaintiff also seeks permission to
proceed in forma pauperis. (Dkt. 2). For the reasons
below, the Court (1) grants Plaintiffs request to proceed as
a poor person; and (2) dismisses his Complaint with prejudice
for failure to state a cause of action on which relief may be
granted, and based on absolute judicial and prosecutorial
Standard of Review
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court must conduct an
initial screening of a pro se litigant's
complaint and must dismiss if it is "frivolous and
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." 28
U.S.C. § l9l5(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii). In evaluating the
Complaint, the Court must accept as true all of the factual
allegations and must draw all inferences in Plaintiffs favor.
See Larkin v. Savage, 318 F.3d 138, 139 (2d Cir.
2003); King v. Simpson, 189 F.3d 284, 287 (2d Cir.
"a court is obliged to construe (pro se]
pleadings liberally, particularly when they allege civil
rights violations, " McEachin v. McGuinnis, 357
F.3d 197, 200 (2d Cir. 2004), even pleadings submitted
pro se must meet the notice requirements of Rule 8
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Wynder v.
McMahon, 360 F.3d 73 (2d Cir. 2004). "Specific
facts are not necessary, " and the plaintiff "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 citation omitted) (quoting Bell Ail.
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)).
on the Court's evaluation of the Complaint, Plaintiffs
claims must be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A for failure to state a claim on which relief may
Plaintiff Fails to State a Claim On Which Relief May Be
a frequent litigant who has approximately two dozen cases
currently pending in this Court, has filed this action
seeking money damages against two Judges who have handled his
cases and the prosecutor(s) involved. Plaintiffs Complaint is
difficult to comprehend. To illustrate, Plaintiff alleges as
Defendant violations violated the plaintiffs actions and
proceedings to other courts, article to certain courts out of
New York Jurisdiction there from prior proceeds invasion of
justice breach the justice under 18 U.S.C. § 2242-2242
intentional powers of local governments to be restricted on
detained the plaintiff.
(Dkt. 1 at 7). Nevertheless, the gravamen of Plaintiff s
Complaint is clear: he alleges that Defendants have violated
Plaintiffs constitutional rights by failing to grant his
release from custody as an immigration detainee.
(Id. at 6).
Plaintiffs § 1983 Claims are Construed as Arising Under
brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
"To state a valid claim under § 1983, the plaintiff
must allege that the challenged conduct (1) was attributable
to a person acting under color of state law, and (2) deprived
the plaintiff of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by
the Constitution or laws of ...