Opinion
11-CV-4219 (JG).
September 1, 2011
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Pro se plaintiff Henry C. Latham filed this claim on August 30, 2011. 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.
DISCUSSION
A. 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). However, 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."
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)).
B. Rule 8 Standard
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." 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). Mr. Latham's complaint is incomprehensible and fails to meet this burden.
Latham has filed at least fourteen other incomprehensible complaints in this court. See Latham v. Transit Adjudicate, 11-CV-4183 (JG); Latham v. 29 Gallatin Place Brooklyn, 11-CV-2726 (JG) (dismissed without prejudice on June 13, 2011); 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. New York Harbor et al., 10-CV-2768 (JG) (dismissed without prejudice on August 16, 2010) ; Latham v. Transit Authority 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 Authority 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 Hospital 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 Center, 06-CV-1140 (DGT) (dismissed by order dated April 5, 2006, for failure to state claim on which relief may be granted); Latham v. New York 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.