Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.

Chavez v. Doe

United States District Court, S.D. New York

January 15, 2020




         Plaintiff, 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 ("IFP").


         The 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).

         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." 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. Id.


         Plaintiff 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 worship.

         On July 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, '"[1] "Elmhurst CPEP," Mount Sinai Hospital, [2]"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.

         Plaintiff 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.

         Second, 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.

         Third, 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 rendered." Id.

         Fourth, 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!" Id.

         In his 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 ...

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.