Opinion
Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-00687-UNA
05-13-2013
Xavier Flores, Plaintiff, v. NYS Dep't of Labor/Unemployment, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on review of plaintiff's pro se complaint and application to proceed in forma pauperis. The application will be granted and the case will be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) (requiring dismissal of a case upon a determination that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted).
Plaintiff, a homeless individual who submitted more than 30 cryptic complaints within the first two weeks of March alone, sues the State of New York purportedly under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. He alleges, however, only that he was denied unemployment benefits. Compl. at 1. Plaintiff seeks $35 million in damages. Id. at 2.
A plaintiffs "allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level . . . ." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted); see Aktieselskabet AF 21. Nov. 2001 v. Fame Jeans, Inc., 525 F.3d 8, 16 n.4 (D.C. Cir. 2008) ("We have never accepted 'legal conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations' because a complaint needs some information about the circumstances giving rise to the claims.") (quoting Kowal v. MCI Commc'ns Corp., 16 F.3d 1271, 1276 (D.C. Cir. 1994)). Plaintiff does not allege that he was denied benefits because of a disability and, therefore, has stated no facts to support an ADA claim. To the extent that plaintiff is challenging the denial of unemployment benefits by the State of New York, his recourse lies, if at all, in the New York state courts. See David v. Comm'r of Labor, State of New York, No. 03-CV-16, 2003 WL 21518155, at *2 (D.Minn. May 28, 2003) ("[R]ather than waiving sovereign immunity, New York has prescribed a detailed mechanism to challenge the denial of unemployment benefits, designating the state venue as the appropriate forum.") (citing N.Y. Labor Law §§ 620, 621, 626). A separate Order of dismissal accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
______________________
United States District Judge