United States District Court, S.D. New York
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
COLLEEN McMAHON, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
brings this action pro se. By order dated January 8, 2020,
the Court granted Plaintiff's request to proceed without
prepayment of fees, that is, in forma pauperis
(“IFP”). The Court dismisses this action for the
reasons set forth below.
Court must dismiss an IFP complaint, or portion thereof, 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, or portion thereof, 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, 474-75 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal
quotation marks and citations omitted, emphasis in original).
is frivolous when it “lacks an arguable basis either in
law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S.
319, 325 (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, 33 (1992) (holding
that “a finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate
when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or
the wholly incredible”); Livingston, 141 F.3d
at 437 (“[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
are Plaintiff's allegations as written:
N.Y.P.D. was investigating me, under there survillace I been
extords assaulted intimidated, bully, spyed, harass,
difameted, they haven't done nothing about it. Under
there survillace I was tokend from the place I was staying
ilegaly and returnd back but with an electronic device that
monitor my brain thinking (data breach) they are neglecting
to protect me on purpose with unjustifiable excuse and
pretending that they don't know.
(ECF No. 2 ¶ III.)
section of the complaint prompting Plaintiff to explain which
rights have been violated, Plaintiff asserts:
Lack of investigation, conspiracy of spying, conspiracy of
exploitation, neglect to protect me, conspiracy false
imprisonment, conspiracy of [fraud], conspiracy of computer
theft, conspiracy of harassment, etc.
(Id. ¶ I.)
relief section, Plaintiff writes: “money estimate
pending, ” “refund of information, ”
“information of investigation, ” and