Opinion
21-CV-8054 (LTS)
10-01-2021
JERRY PAGAN, Plaintiff, v. GOVERNMENT AGENCIES, ET AL., No. Defendants.
ORDER TO AMEND
LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge:
Plaintiff, who is currently detained at Bellevue Hospital Prison Ward, brings this pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. By order dated September 28, 2021, the Court granted Plaintiff's request to proceed without prepayment of fees, that is, in forma pauperis. For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint within sixty days of the date of this order.
Prisoners are not exempt from paying the full filing fee even when they have been granted permission to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1).
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires that federal courts screen complaints brought by prisoners who seek relief against a governmental entity or an officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a prisoner's in forma pauperis complaint, or any portion of the complaint, 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). The Court must also dismiss a complaint if 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.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff brings this action against unnamed John and Jane Doe defendants and “Government Agencies, ” by which he appears to mean the “NYPD, DOC, Hospitals, Community Businesses, and courts.” Plaintiff was remanded to Bellevue Hospital Prison Ward in connection with his criminal charges pending in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Bronx County, People v. Pagan, No. 03749-2016. Plaintiff describes that facts of his claims in this matter as follows:
(1) Animal eating and products of discard food and beverages and pills of [illegible] utensils got placed on my bodily presence; (2) diagnosis from assigned person or persons who (3) side effects conduct symptoms of unlawful arrest on separate unlawful arrest on separate dates recorded. Body damage and record of criminal appearances. Identity grieving of my history notified to assigned visitation placement. Slander. Impersonation.(ECF 2 at 4.) Plaintiff states that his injuries consist of the following:
Body damage of being arrested by [illegible]. Exposure causing harm to my ability functioning that caused serious health conditions which caused physical issues by reasonable behavioral actions to my life . . . [illegible].(Id. at 5.) In terms of the relief that Plaintiff seeks, Plaintiff asks for the following:
Dismissal of charge and record erase. Unlimited spending amount. The credential[s] of the highest rank of Government. Relevance to national television. Investigation of myself as different from others and the access to those involved with survived as family. Afford me with all exceptions that include living providings.(Id.)
The Court quotes from the complaint verbatim. All capitalization, punctuation, omissions, and grammar are in the original.
DISCUSSION
A. Pending Criminal Proceedings
Plaintiff asks the Court, among other things, for dismissal of his pending criminal charges. (ECF 2 at 5.) Challenges to Plaintiff's criminal charges in People v. Pagan, No. 03749-2016, must be raised in the context of that proceeding, in which Plaintiff is represented by counsel. In Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), the Supreme Court held that federal courts may not stay or enjoin pending state court proceedings except under extraordinary circumstances. Plaintiff makes no allegations suggesting that extraordinary circumstances exist here, and the Court must therefore abstain from issuing any relief in connection with his state court criminal proceedings.
B. Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a plaintiff must make a “short and plain statement” showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. The Supreme Court has explained 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.
Here, the Court is unable to determine from the allegations of the complaint what occurred or how Plaintiff alleges that his rights were violated. Plaintiff has not pleaded facts about what any Defendant did or failed to do. For example, Plaintiff names John and Jane Doe Defendants in the caption of the case, but he does not include facts about what John or Jane Doe did that violated his rights. Plaintiff's complaint, as presently pleaded, thus fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted.
LEAVE TO AMEND
Plaintiff proceeds in this matter without the benefit of an attorney. District courts generally should grant a self-represented plaintiff an opportunity to amend a complaint to cure its defects, unless amendment 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). Indeed, the Second Circuit has cautioned that district courts “should not dismiss [a pro se complaint] without granting leave to amend at least once when a liberal reading of the complaint gives any indication that a valid claim might be stated.” Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99, 112 (2d Cir. 2000) (quoting Gomez v. USAA Fed. Sav. Bank, 171 F.3d 794, 795 (2d Cir. 1999)). Because Plaintiff may be able to allege additional facts to state a valid claim, the Court grants Plaintiff sixty days' leave to amend his complaint to detail his claims.
Plaintiff is granted leave to amend his complaint to provide more facts about his claims. First, Plaintiff must name as the defendant(s) in the caption and in the statement of claim those individuals who were allegedly involved in the deprivation of his federal rights. If Plaintiff does not know the name of a defendant, he may refer to that individual as “John Doe” or “Jane Doe” in both the caption and the body of the amended complaint. The naming of John Doe defendants, however, does not toll the three-year statute of limitations period governing this action and Plaintiff shall be responsible for ascertaining the true identity of any “John Doe” defendants and amending his complaint to include the identity of any “John Doe” defendants before the statute of limitations period expires. Should Plaintiff seek to add a new claim or party after the statute of limitations period has expired, he must meet the requirements of Rule 15(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
For example, a defendant may be identified as: “Correction Officer John Doe #1 on duty August 31, 2020, at Sullivan Correctional Facility, during the 7-3 p.m. shift.”
In the “Statement of Claim” section of the amended complaint form, Plaintiff must provide a short and plain statement of the relevant facts supporting each claim against each defendant. If Plaintiff has an address for any named defendant, Plaintiff must provide it. Plaintiff should include all of the information in the amended complaint that Plaintiff wants the Court to consider in deciding whether the amended complaint states a claim for relief. That information should include:
a) the names and titles of all relevant people;
b) a description of all relevant events, including what each defendant did or failed to do, the approximate date and time of each event, and the general location where each event occurred;
c) a description of the injuries Plaintiff suffered; and
d) the relief Plaintiff seeks, such as money damages, injunctive relief, or declaratory relief.
Essentially, Plaintiff's amended complaint should tell the Court: who violated his federally protected rights and how; when and where such violations occurred; and why Plaintiff is entitled to relief.
Because Plaintiff's amended complaint will completely replace, not supplement, the original complaint, any facts or claims that Plaintiff wants to include from the original complaint must be repeated in the amended complaint.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint that complies with the standards set forth above. Plaintiff must submit the amended complaint to this Court's Pro Se Intake Unit within sixty days of the date of this order, caption the document as an “Amended Complaint, ” and label the document with docket number 21-CV-8054 (LTS). An Amended Civil Rights Complaint form is attached to this order. No summons will issue at this time. If Plaintiff fails to comply within the time allowed, and he cannot show good cause to excuse such failure, the complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. Cf. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962) (holding that an appellant demonstrates good faith when he seeks review of a nonfrivolous issue). The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff and note service on the docket.