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.

Ajaero v. Entire Appellate Division

United States District Court, S.D. New York

January 10, 2020

ANTHONY J. AJAERO, Plaintiff,
v.
THE ENTIRE APPELLATE DIVISION, APPELLATE TERM; SUPREME COURT; CRIMINAL COURT; FAMILY COURT; AND ALL OTHER INFERIOR COURTS WITHIN THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Defendants.

          ORDER OF DISMISSAL

          Colleen McMahon, Chief United States District Judge.

         Plaintiff, appearing pro se, brings this action alleging that his rights have been violated in various New York State courts. By order dated December 20, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff's request to proceed without prepayment of fees, that is, in forma pauperis (IFP).

         STANDARD OF REVIEW

         The Court must dismiss an IFP complaint, or any portion of the complaint, that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on 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); see Livingston v. Adirondack Beverage Co., 141 F.3d 434, 437 (2d Cir. 1998). The Court must also dismiss a complaint when the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).

         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 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (emphasis in original). But the “special solicitude” in pro se cases, id. at 475 (citation omitted), has its limits - to state a claim, pro se pleadings still must comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires a complaint to make a short and plain statement showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.

         The Supreme Court has held that under Rule 8, a complaint must include enough facts to state a claim for relief “that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim is facially plausible if the plaintiff pleads enough factual detail to allow the court to draw the inference that the defendant is liable for the alleged misconduct. In reviewing the complaint, the court must accept all well-pleaded factual allegations as true. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009). But it does not have to accept as true “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, ” which are essentially just legal conclusions. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. After separating legal conclusions from well-pleaded factual allegations, the court must determine whether those facts make it plausible - not merely possible - that the pleader is entitled to relief. Id.

         BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff Anthony J. Ajero filed this 182-page, 487-paragraph complaint, alleging that various judges, surrogates, and other judicial officers violated his rights with respect to pending and prior litigation in the New York State Surrogate, Supreme, and Housing Courts.

         Plaintiff brings this action seeking to have this Court:

Immediately intervene to stay all proceedings pertaining to, and to vacate the fraudulently improper judgments against the petitioner's decedents estate and to prohibit the judiciary of the entire Appellate, Supreme, and inferior courts of New York State from presiding thus they must be compelled to abdicate and to transfer the underlying matters to the Federal Court as any ruling rendered in petitioner's favor within the [sic] these courts will, undoubtedly, be improperly reversed an [sic] reduced in retaliation by the Appellate Division and the Appellate Term who employ Appellate McKeon, in order to fraudulently conceal the crimes and murders of Montefiore Hospital, where Appellate McKeon is Chairman of the Board of Directors, in similar fashion to the outcome of Adams v. Pilarte.

(ECF No. 2 at 179.)

         Plaintiff seeks monetary damages, as well as declaratory and injunctive relief.

         DISCUSSION

         Because Plaintiff alleges that his constitutional rights were violated, the Court construes Plaintiff's claims as arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege both that: (1) a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) the right was violated by a person acting ...


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.