Opinion
11-CV-2726 (JG).
June 13, 2011
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Pro se plaintiff Henry C. Latham filed this claim on June 6, 2011. I am unable to discern whether he intended his filing to begin a new action or to serve as an amended complaint in the related case in which it was originally docketed, Latham v. Transit Authority Civil, 10-CV-2047 (JG), which was dismissed without prejudice on July 26, 2010. If I err, I choose to err in his favor, and I therefore construe his filing as a new claim. I grant his request to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 solely for the purpose of this order. Because I am unable to determine what claim he is advancing, I dismiss the complaint without prejudice.
Because this complaint was originally filed as an amended complaint under an existing docket number, there is no associated request to proceed in forma pauperis. However, as I have now determined that the complaint should proceed as a separate action, and as in each of his prior cases Latham has properly requested IFP status, I presume that he would have requested IFP status in this case as well and hereby infer such a request.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
In reviewing plaintiff's complaint, I am mindful that "a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Moreover, because plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the court must liberally construe his pleadings, and must interpret his complaint to raise the strongest arguments it suggests. See McPherson v. Coombe, 174 F.3d 276, 280 (2d Cir. 1999) (quoting Burgos v. Hopkins, 14 F.3d 787, 790 (2d Cir. 1994)). "The policy of liberally construing pro se submissions is driven by the understanding that '[i]mplicit in the right to self-representation is an obligation on the part of the court to make reasonable allowances to protect pro se litigants from inadvertent forfeiture of important rights because of their lack of legal training.'" Abbas v. Dixon, 480 F.3d 636, 639 (2d Cir. 2007) (quoting Traguth v. Zuck, 710 F.2d 90, 95 (2d Cir. 1983)). Notwithstanding the foregoing, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), a district court shall dismiss an in forma pauperis action where it is satisfied that the action "(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."
DISCUSSION
Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that a complaint contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). Rule 8 does not require much, but it "demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). Latham's complaint is incomprehensible and fails to meet this burden.
Latham has filed at least twelve other incomprehensible complaints in this court. See Latham v. 800 Poly Place et al., 10-CV-5697 (JG) (dismissed without prejudice on December 17, 2010); Latham v. Latham et al., 10-CV-3915 (JG) (dismissed without prejudice on December 14, 2010); Latham v. John, 10-CV-3445 (JG) (dismissed without prejudice on August 26, 2010); Latham v. N.Y. Harbor et al., 10-CV-2768 (JG) (dismissed without prejudice on August 16, 2010); Latham v. Transit Auth. Civil, 10-CV-2047 (JG) (dismissed without prejudice on July 26, 2010); Latham v. John, 09-CV-3398 (JG) (dismissed without prejudice on August 20, 2009 as unintelligible); Latham v. Transit Auth. Civil, 09-CV-1009 (JG) (dismissed without prejudice on July 16, 2009 because the complaint was unintelligible); Latham v. Civil Gov't Transit Bldg., 08-CV-2522 (JG) (dismissed without prejudice on July 17, 2008 because the Court was unable to discern the basis of his claim); Latham v. VA Outpatient Hosp. et al., 06-CV-6758 (DGT) (dismissed by order dated January 11, 2007, for failure to state claim on which relief may be granted); Latham v. Kingsboro Psychiatric Ctr., 06-CV-1140 (DGT) (dismissed by order dated April 5, 2006, for failure to state claim on which relief may be granted); Latham v. N.Y. Psychotherapy, 04-CV-2945 (DGT) (dismissed by order dated September 3, 2004, for failure to state claim on which relief may be granted); Latham v. Iappil et al., 02-CV-2523 (DGT) (dismissed by order dated June 27, 2002).
CONCLUSION
The complaint is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. In forma pauperis status is denied for purpose of an appeal because any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).SO ORDERED.