United States District Court, S.D. New York
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
COLLEEN MCMAHON, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
appearing pro se, brings this action under the Court's
federal question jurisdiction, alleging “human rights
violations” and “civil rights violations.”
By order dated November 22, 2019, the Court granted
Plaintiff's request to proceed without prepayment of
fees, that is, in forma pauperis (IFP). The Court dismisses
the complaint for the reasons set forth below.
Court must dismiss a complaint, or portion thereof, that is
frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a
defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1915(e)(2)(B), 1915A(b); see Abbas v.
Dixon, 480 F.3d 636, 639 (2d Cir. 2007). While the law
mandates dismissal on any of these grounds, the Court is
obliged to construe pro se pleadings liberally, Harris v.
Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir. 2009), and interpret
them to raise the “strongest [claims] that they
suggest, ” Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of
Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474-75 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal
quotation marks and citations omitted) (emphasis in
is frivolous when it “lacks an arguable basis either in
law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S.
319, 324-25 (1989), abrogated on other grounds by Bell
Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007); see also
Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992) (holding
that “finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate
when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or
the wholly incredible”); Livingston v. Adirondack
Beverage Co., 141 F.3d 434, 437 (2d Cir. 1998)
(“[A]n action is ‘frivolous' when either: (1)
the factual contentions are clearly baseless . . .; or (2)
the claim is based on an indisputably meritless legal
theory.”) (internal quotation marks and citation
Paul Utah, a Queens resident, filed this complaint regarding
events occurring between January 1, 2012, and November 18,
2019. He alleges as follows:
Humiliation, illegal investigations, Targeting from Humans
and Law enforcements. Closing my accounts illegally and not
letting me open a new account. Using the radio or speaker
system. Spreading rumors, lying about bank procedures. Civil
Rights Violations, Human Rights Violations, False Claims,
Emotional Trauma, Pressing the emergency button, Profiling
me, Racial Profiling, Human Eye on me, Eye of Law
Enforcements. They profiled me as Homeless and Stupid,
intimidation, illegal monitoring of my accounts at TD Bank.
Calling the law enforcement while visiting the branches.
Using radio while visiting the branches, illegally video
recording me while using the branches. Security harassed me
and wanted to beat me up.
(ECF Doc. 2 ¶ III.)
seeks $15 million in damages and injunctive relief.
when read with the “special solicitude” due pro
se pleadings, Triestman, 470 F.3d at 474-75, Plaintiff's
claims rise to the level of the irrational, and there is no
legal theory on which he can rely. See Denton, 504 U.S. at
33; Livingston, 141 F.3d at 437.
courts generally grant a pro se plaintiff an opportunity to
amend a complaint to cure its defects, but leave to amend is
not required where it would be futile. See Hill v.
Curcione,657 F.3d 116, 123-24 (2d Cir. 2011);
Salahuddin v. Cuomo,861 F.2d 40, 42 (2d Cir. 1988).
Because the defects in Plaintiff's complaint cannot be
cured with an amendment, the Court declines to ...