United States District Court, S.D. New York
ORDER OF SERVICE
ABRAMS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
appearing pro se, brings this action under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983, alleging that Defendants violated his federal
constitutional rights. By order dated October 9, 2019, the
Court granted Plaintiffs request to proceed without
prepayment of fees, that is, in forma pauperis
Court must dismiss an in forma pauperis 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).
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
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." BellAtl. 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.
filed the initial complaint under the name "Plaintiff
Under Seal, John/Jane Doe 1-9, et al" and named as
Defendants Sgt. Finney; #3281; #3271; the People of the State
of New York; and "John/Jane Does 1-789, et al."
Dkt. 2. The initial complaint alleged, inter alia,
that Plaintiff was subject to an unlawful arrest while he was
engaged in religious worship. The complaint plead
discrimination based on race, religion, and socio-economic
background; First Amendment violations; Fourth Amendment
violations; Fifth Amendment violations; Sixth Amendment
violations; Eighth Amendment violations; Eleventh Amendment
violations; Fourteenth Amendment violations; Lanham Act
violations; false arrest; unlawful detention; slander;
R.I.CO. violations; false imprisonment; wrongful
imprisonment; Hobbs Act violations; and disturbance of
15, 2019, Judge Stanton directed Plaintiff to file an amended
complaint that includes his real name, correct address, and
signature. Dkt. 3. On September 13, 2019, Plaintiff filed an
amended complaint that includes his name, address, and
signature. Dkt. 5. In the amended complaint, Plaintiff named
as Defendants Sgt. Finney of the Port Authority of New York
and New Jersey, "BRC 'The Boulevard,
'" "Elmhurst CPEP," Mount Sinai
Hospital, "ADT Recommender," the "730
Psychs," the "DHS Office of the Ombudsman,"
"possibly the DOB/American Red Cross," and
"John/Jane Does 1-9, et al." whose shield numbers
are listed as 3281 and 3271. Id. at 1-2. Plaintiff
alleges that Sgt. Finney violated his rights.
uses the Court's Amended Civil Rights Complaint form. In
the section labeled "Statement of Claim," Plaintiff
organizes his claims into four paragraphs: First, he purports
to incorporate by reference his original complaint (which he
attaches as an exhibit) and a complaint that he filed in the
Northern District of Texas.
Plaintiff claims, "Homeless service entities are
conspiring with the DOB, American Red Cross, police
officials, hospitals, and jails, et al., to keep people
without sound boundary conditions . . . deem them mentally
incompetent, criminal and halt progress-and-fair-competition
in business, in order to promote themselves in their
gangs." Id. at 3.
Plaintiff states that he "is not mentally ill" and
is "innocent and not a criminal." He states that he
is "a prolific writer/inventor and deserves to hold
[t]itles for his deeds commensurate to/with services
Plaintiff writes, "The psychs at the Queens 730
screening in 2019 told Plaintiff he was facing 13 years in a
psych ward for a purported train hopping violation from 2013
that had already been dismissed, and allegedly occurred in
Brooklyn. Shocking to the conscious! [sic] Plaintiff was
arrested by New Jersey authorities in Manhattan!"
request for relief, Plaintiff directs the Court to
"incorporate by reference" the relief he seeks in
Exhibit B to his amended complaint. Id. at 6.
Exhibit B, in turn, provides citations to previous cases
Plaintiff has filed and requests that the relief sought in
those cases be incorporated by reference. Plaintiff also
seeks to incorporate by reference the relief sought in
Exhibit C to his amended complaint. Exhibit C appears to
contain, inter alia, an email exchange between
Plaintiff and a representative of Public Access to Court
Electronic Records (PACER), an email exchange between
Plaintiff and Robin ...