Opinion
1:21-CV-1132 (DNH/DJS)
12-08-2021
PATRICK DISANTO, Plaintiff, v. ULSTER COUNTY, Defendant.
PATRICK DISANTO Plaintiff, Pro Se.
PATRICK DISANTO Plaintiff, Pro Se.
REPORT-RECOMMENDATION AND ORDER
DANIEL J. STEWART United States Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff pro se was involved in a lengthy Family Court matter venued in Ulster County, New York. Dkt. No. 1, Compl., p. 3; see also Cid v. DiSanto, 122 A.D.3d 1094 (3d Dep't 2014). This is the second Complaint filed by Plaintiff in this District related to those proceedings. See DiSanto v. Ulster County Family Court, et al., 1:19-CV-1422 (DNH/DJS) (“DiSanto I ”). DiSanto I was commenced in 2019 and Judgment was entered dismissing the action on May 19, 2020. DiSanto I, Dkt. Nos. 1 & 12. That action was dismissed after Plaintiff was granted leave to file an amended complaint, but did not do so pursuant to the directions of the District Court. Dkt. No. 11.
The Complaint in this action was filed October 18, 2021. Dkt. No. 1. It was administratively closed based on the failure to pay the required filing fee, Dkt. No. 2, but reopened after Plaintiff sought in forma pauperis status. Dkt. No. 6. The Complaint names Ulster County as the sole Defendant. Compl. at p. 1. It is filed on a form complaint for claims brought under Title VII. Though not a model of clarity, the Complaint appears to relate, as did DiSanto I, to allegations that the judge handling his custody matter violated his rights. Id. at pp. 3-4.
I. DISCUSSION
A. Pleading Requirements
Section 1915(e) of Title 28 of the United States Code directs that, when a plaintiff seeks to proceed in forma pauperis, “the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Thus, it is a court's responsibility to determine that a plaintiff may properly maintain his complaint before permitting him to proceed further with his action.
In reviewing a pro se complaint, this Court has a duty to show liberality toward pro se litigants, see Nance v. Kelly, 912 F.2d 605, 606 (2d Cir. 1990), and should exercise “extreme caution . . . in ordering sua sponte dismissal of a pro se complaint before the adverse party has been served and both parties (but particularly the plaintiff) have had an opportunity to respond.” Anderson v. Coughlin, 700 F.2d 37, 41 (2d Cir. 1983) (emphasis in original) (citations omitted). Therefore, a court should not dismiss a complaint if the plaintiff has stated “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Although the court should construe the factual allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, “the tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions.” Id. “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). “[W]here the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged -but it has not ‘show[n]'-‘that the pleader is entitled to relief” Id. at 679 (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2)). A pleading that only “tenders naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement” will not suffice. Id. at 678 (further citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, for the proposition that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 “demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation”). Allegations that “are so vague as to fail to give the defendants adequate notice of the claims against them” are subject to dismissal. Sheehy v. Brown, 335 Fed.Appx. 102, 104 (2d Cir. 2009).
Furthermore, a court's initial review of a complaint under § 1915(e) must encompass the applicable standards of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a pleading must contain:
(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction . .
(2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; and
(3) a demand for the relief sought, which may include relief in the alternative or different types of relief.Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). The purpose of Rule 8 “is to give fair notice of the claim being asserted so as to permit the adverse party the opportunity to file a responsive answer [and] prepare an adequate defense.” Hudson v. Artuz, 1998 WL 832708, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 30, 1998) (quoting Powell v. Marine Midland Bank, 162 F.R.D. 15, 16 (N.D.N.Y.1995)). Moreover, Rule 10 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides, in part:
(b) Paragraphs; Separate Statements. A party must state its claims or defenses in numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances. A later pleading may refer by number to a paragraph in an earlier pleading. If doing so would promote clarity, each claim founded on a separate transaction or occurrence - and each defense other than a denial - must be stated in a separate count or defense.Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b). The purpose of Rule 10 is to “provide an easy mode of identification for referring to a particular paragraph in a prior pleading[.]” Sandler v. Capanna, 1992 WL 392597, at *3 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 17, 1992) (citing 5 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 1323 at 735 (1990)).
A complaint that fails to comply with these Rules “presents far too heavy a burden in terms of defendants' duty to shape a comprehensive defense and provides no meaningful basis for the Court to assess the sufficiency of [the plaintiffs] claims, ” and may properly be dismissed by the court. Gonzales v. Wing, 167 F.R.D. 352, 355 (N.D.N.Y. 1996). “Dismissal, however, is usually reserved for those cases in which the complaint is so confused, ambiguous, vague, or otherwise unintelligible that its true substance, if any, is well disguised.” Hudson v. Artuz, 1998 WL 832708, at *2 (internal quotation marks omitted). In those cases, in which the court dismisses a pro se complaint for failure to comply with these Rules, it should afford the plaintiff leave to amend the complaint to state a claim that is on its face nonfrivolous. See Simmons v. Abruzzo, 49 F.3d 83, 86-87 (2d Cir. 1995).
B. Plaintiffs Complaint
Plaintiffs Complaint clearly does not comport with the requirements set forth above. It does not provide the information required under Rule 8, including a clear and concise statement of the specific factual allegations or legal claims being asserted against Defendant. As currently set forth the allegations fail to provide adequate notice regarding the legal claims Plaintiff seeks to assert against Defendant or the facts underlying those claims. It is unclear, for example, what legal right or rights of Plaintiff have been violated or how Defendant, in particular, may have violated those rights. This failure warrants dismissal of the Complaint. Powell v. Marine Midland Bank, 162 F.R.D. 15, 16 (N.D.N.Y. 1995) (dismissal appropriate when Complaint “does not provide an adequate description of the particular acts by the defendant which led to this suit or an explanation of how such acts were illegal.”).
While this is Plaintiffs second legal action in this District and these pleading requirements have previously been explained to him, DiSanto I, Dkt. No. 10, “[o]rdinarily, a court should not dismiss a complaint filed by a pro se litigant 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.'” Bruce v. Tompkins Cty. Dep't of Soc. Servs. ex rel. Kephart, 2015 WL 151029, at *4 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 7, 2015) (quoting Branum v. Clark, 927 F.2d 698, 704-05 (2d Cir. 1991). Accordingly, the Court recommends that the Complaint be dismissed, but that Plaintiff be afforded an opportunity to amend.
The Court advises Plaintiff that should he be permitted to amend his Complaint, any amended pleading he submits must comply with Rules 8 and 10 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Any such amended complaint, which shall supersede and replace in its entirety the previous Complaint filed by Plaintiff , must contain sequentially numbered paragraphs containing only one act of misconduct per paragraph . Thus, if Plaintiff claims that his civil and/or constitutional rights were violated by more than one defendant, or on more than one occasion, he should include a corresponding number of paragraphs in his amended complaint for each such allegation, with each paragraph specifying (i) the alleged act of misconduct; (ii) the date, including the year, on which such misconduct occurred; (iii) the names of each and every individual who participated in such misconduct; (iv) where appropriate, the location where the alleged misconduct occurred; and, (v) the nexus between such misconduct and Plaintiffs civil and/or constitutional rights.
Plaintiff is further cautioned that no portion of his prior Complaint shall be incorporated into his amended complaint by reference. Any amended complaint submitted by Plaintiff must set forth all of the claims he intends to assert against the defendants and must demonstrate that a case or controversy exists between the Plaintiff and the defendants which Plaintiff has a legal right to pursue and over which this Court has jurisdiction. If Plaintiff is alleging that the named defendant violated a law, he should specifically refer to such law.
The Court notes two additional relevant considerations. First, though filed on a form Title VII complaint, there are no allegations of an employment relationship that would provide a basis for a claim under that statute. See 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-5 (discussing federal court jurisdiction for claims involving an “unlawful employment practice.”). Plaintiff must, therefore, clearly articulate the basis for his legal claims. In addition, to the extent Plaintiff is attempting to assert a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act, Plaintiff is advised that claims under that statute “are subject to a three-year limitations period.” Am. Council of Blind of New York, Inc. v. City of New York, 495 F.Supp.3d 211, 242 (S.D.N.Y. 2020); Patrella v. Cty. of Suffolk, 2019 WL 6525650, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 3, 2019). Given that the allegations in the Complaint appear to relate to events between 2003 and 2013, Compl. at p. 3, any amended complaint should address the timeliness of such a claim, if Plaintiff seeks to assert one.
II. CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE, it is hereby
RECOMMENDED, that Plaintiffs Complaint be DISMISSED but that Plaintiff be granted leave to replead; and it is
ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court serve a copy of this Report-Recommendation and Order upon the parties to this action.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the parties have fourteen (14) days within which to file written objections to the foregoing report. Such objections shall be filed with the Clerk of the Court. FAILURE TO OBJECT TO THIS REPORT WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS WILL PRECLUDE APPELLATE REVIEW. Roldan v. Racette, 984 F.2d 85, 89 (2d Cir. 1993) (citing Small v. Sec'y of Health and Human Servs., 892 F.2d 15 (2d Cir. 1989)); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 & 6(a).
If you are proceeding pro se and are served with this Order by mail, three additional days will be added to the fourteen-day period, meaning that you have seventeen days from the date the order was mailed to you to serve and file objections. Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(d). If the last day of that prescribed period falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, then the deadline is extended until the end of the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday. Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a)(1)(C).