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.

Juste v. Vilardo

United States District Court, W.D. New York

January 11, 2018

ANDRE JUSTE, Plaintiff,
v.
LAWRENCE J. VILARDO, JEREMIAH J, MCCARTHY, GAIL MITCHELL, U.S. ASSISTANT ATTORNEY, AND U.S. ATTORNEY, WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, Defendants.

          ORDER

          ELIZABETH A. WOLFORD UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         INTRODUCTION

         In this 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 immunity.

         DISCUSSION

         I. Standard of Review

         Under 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. 1999).

         While "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)).

         Based 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 be granted.

         II. Plaintiff Fails to State a Claim On Which Relief May Be Granted

         Plaintiff, 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 follows:

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).

         A. Plaintiffs § 1983 Claims are Construed as Arising Under Bivens

         Plaintiff 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 ...


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.