Opinion
20-CV-10478 (LLS)
02-18-2021
CURTIS VAN STUYVESANT United States Ex. Rel, Petitioner, v. WILLIAM BARR, United States Attorney General Department of Justice; CHRISTOPHER WREY, Director Federal Bureau of Investigation Department of Justice; CHAD WOLF, Acting Secretary United States Department of Homeland Security; FRANCIS CASSINA, Director United States Citizenship and Immigration Services; TONY H. PHAM, Director United States Immigration and Custom Enforcement, Respondents.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL :
Petitioner, appearing pro se, brings this application styled as a petition for a writ of mandamus. By order dated January 5, 2021, the Court granted Petitioner's request to proceed without prepayment of fees, that is, in forma pauperis. The Court dismisses the petition for the reasons set forth below.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Court must dismiss a complaint, or portion thereof, 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). 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).
A claim is frivolous when it "lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324-25 (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, 32-33 (1992) (holding that "finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible"); Livingston v. Adirondack Beverage Co., 141 F.3d 434, 437 (2d Cir. 1998) ("[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 omitted).
BACKGROUND
Petitioner Curtis Van Stuyvesant makes the following allegations. On an unspecified date, he "was charged with one count of 18 U.S.C. § 1001 Making false statement to a federal agent." (ECF 1 at ¶ 65.) A magistrate judge "signed an order b[inding] petitioner over for 180 days for a psychiatric evaluation" and he was transported from the Metropolitan Correctional Center in Manhattan to a medical prison in Springfield, Missouri. (Id.) After 180 days, Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) John Ryan and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) "decided petitioner was suffering from a mental illness and his alleged criminal responsibility was therefore considered diminished in a scheme to sentence[ ] him to a psychiatric hospital . . . ." (Id. at ¶ 69.)
Petitioner fired his defense counsel, who pressured Petitioner to accept an offer to plead not guilty as a result of temporary insanity. (Id. at ¶ 71.) Petitioner contends that then-Chief District Judge Charles Brieant dismissed the charges against Petitioner and enjoined AUSA Ryan and the FBI from turning Petitioner over to the Immigration and Naturalization Services (INS) for removal. (Id. at ¶ 72.) Since 1980, various government agents and entities in New York and New Jersey have "attempted to force petitioner into a psychiatric hospital for life, with no mental health diagnosis to speak of." (Id. at ¶ 73.)
At some point in the 1980's, while Petitioner was living in New Jersey, he was arrested and "turned over" to immigration authorities. (Id. at ¶ 82.) INS officials indicated that there was no record of his inspection upon arrival at JFK Airport, or of his political asylum application. Petitioner contends that Daniel Patrick Moynihan intervened, and his asylum application was approved. In 1986, Petitioner was approved for permanent residence. (Id. at ¶ 86). Petitioner argues that he should be deemed a United States national pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1452(b). (Id. at ¶ 194.)
The district court in Van Stuyvesant v. Holder, No. 10-CV-9008 (NRB), 2014 WL 1224395, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 21, 2014), denied Petitioner's requests for (1) "vacatur of ICE detainer," (2) "[n]aturalization to be made retroactive to 1990," and (3) "immediate release from ICE detention in state custody." The court explained that "Van Stuyvesant, a native and citizen of South Africa, entered the United States in 1979, and subsequently requested asylum. His request for asylum was granted on July 14, 1984, and he became a lawful permanent resident of the United States on October 3, 1987. Van Stuyvesant twice submitted applications for naturalization, the first of which was returned in August 1996 by the Vermont Service Center of the Immigration and Naturalization Service for resubmission to the proper INS local office in New Jersey. After Van Stuyvesant resubmitted his application in New Jersey, his fingerprint submission was flagged by the Federal Bureau of Investigation as potentially belonging to someone ineligible for naturalization on the basis of a criminal record . . . ."
Petitioner states that he is a "British educated barrister and solicitor" who became a partner in an international law firm, Fox, Stewart, Van Stuyvesant, Harrison & Tate. (Id. at ¶ 93.) In 1998, his home and office were searched, and he was charged with multiple criminal violations in connection with his unauthorized practice of law.
According to public records, a jury in the New York Supreme Court, Bronx County, found Van Stuyvesant guilty of two counts of Scheme To Defraud in the First Degree, in violation of N.Y. Penal L. § 190.65(1)(a), (b); four counts of Grand Larceny in the Third Degree, in violation of N.Y. Penal L. § 155.35; four counts of Grand Larceny in the Fourth Degree, in violation of N.Y. Penal L. § 155.30(1); two counts of Attempted Grand Larceny in the Third Degree, in violation of N.Y. Penal L. §§ 110.00/155.35; and one count of Practicing or Appearing as an Attorney at Law Without Being Admitted and Registered, in violation of N.Y. Judiciary L. § 478. Van Stuyvesant was sentenced on July 6, 1999 to an aggregate prison sentence of ten to twenty years' incarceration. See People v. Van Stuyvesant, 297 A.D.2d 559, 560, 747 N.Y.S.2d 155, 156 (2002).
In this application, Petitioner asserts claims relating to: (1) his immigration matters, including efforts to become a naturalized U.S. citizen; (2) the handling of his complaints against district judges and the Clerk of Court for the Second Circuit; (3) the search of his home and office in connection with criminal proceedings leading to his 1999 conviction; (4) his conviction and incarceration; and (5) his lack of identification papers, which has impacted his ability to obtain housing, among other things. He names as defendants current or former officials of federal agencies, including the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and the Bureau of Investigation of the Department of Justice (DOJ).
DISCUSSION
The federal district courts have jurisdiction over "any action in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the Petitioner." 28 U.S.C. § 1361. Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy that should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 34 (1980); Kerr v. United States Dist. Court for the N. Dist. of Cal., 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976).
To obtain mandamus relief, a Petitioner must show that: "(1) no other adequate means [exist] to attain the relief he desires, (2) the party' s right to . . . the [relief] is clear and indisputable, and (3) the [relief] is appropriate under the circumstances." Hollingsworth v. Perry, 558 U.S. 183, 190 (2010) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted, first alteration in original). Petitioner has not satisfied any of these elements.
Petitioner names as defendants current or former officials of federal agencies, including the FBI, DHS, CIS, ICE, and the Bureau of Investigation of the DOJ. Although it is not entirely clear, Petitioner appears to seek an order directing Defendants to adjudicate his naturalization application and award him citizenship retroactive to the date of his first application, and an order providing relief in connection with Petitioner's Bronx County conviction. Even when read with the "special solicitude" due pro se pleadings, Triestman, 470 F.3d at 474-75, Petitioner's application does not demonstrate any "clear and indisputable" right to relief, or that relief is appropriate under the circumstances. Petitioner's request for a writ of mandamus is therefore denied.
Van Stuyvesant v. Conway, 1:03-CV-03856-LAK-DCF (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 14, 2007) (petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging Bronx County conviction denied), appeal dismissed, No. 16-1201(2d Cir. 2018).
Petitioner also includes many inappropriate and scurrilous remarks that have no place in legal pleadings. Petitioner states, for example, that he "won't be held legally responsible if [he] break[s] the neck of the next New York County District Attorney investigators that you send . . . . It will take me less than five second[s] to disarm and disable them . . . .This is war, and I will kill if I need to survive by defending myself." (ECF 4 at 12.)
District courts generally grant a pro se Petitioner an opportunity to amend a complaint to cure its defects, but leave to amend is not required where it 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). Because the defects in Petitioner's complaint cannot be cured with an amendment, the Court declines to grant Petitioner leave to amend.
CONCLUSION
The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this order to Petitioner and note service on the docket.
The petition for a writ of mandamus, filed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, is dismissed.
SO ORDERED. Dated: February 18, 2021
New York, New York
/s/_________
Louis L. Stanton
U.S.D.J.