Opinion
Civ. No. 1:11-CV-741 (MAD/RFT)
10-05-2011
JOHN PICKERING-GEORGE a/k/a JOHN R. DALEY, JR., Plaintiff, v. OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, MARIO CUOMO, et al., Defendants.
JOHN PICKERING-GEORGE Plaintiff, Pro Se
APPEARANCES:
JOHN PICKERING-GEORGE
Plaintiff, Pro Se
OF COUNSEL:
RANDOLPH F. TREECE
United States Magistrate Judge
REPORT-RECOMMENDATION and ORDER
On June 30, 2011, pro se Plaintiff John Pickering-George submitted a Complaint along with an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (IFP). Dkt. No. 1, Compl; Dkt. No. 2, Mot. for IFP. After reviewing those documents, this Court issued a Report-Recommendation wherein we granted the IFP Application and recommended that Plaintiff be afforded an opportunity to amend his Complaint to avoid dismissal. Dkt. No. 3. The basis for that recommendation was Plaintiff's failure to satisfy basic pleading requirements. On August 19, 2011, the Honorable Mae A. D'Agostino, United States District Judge, adopted our recommendations in total and directed Plaintiff to submit an amended complaint. Dkt. No. 5. On September 15, 2011 the Court received a document from Plaintiff, purporting to be an Amended Complaint. Dkt. No. 6.
Upon reviewing the Amended Complaint, we find that not only did Plaintiff fail to cure the deficiencies in his prior pleading, but also, this new pleading is even more incoherent. It still remains unclear what FOIA requests Plaintiff made, when they were made, and to whom. In fact, this pleading is even less clear than the original pleading he submitted. Having already provided Plaintiff an opportunity to amend, and determining that his amended pleading is unintelligible, we find that dismissal is appropriate. Salahuddin v. Cuomo, 861 F.2d 40, 42 (2d Cir. 1988) ("Dismissal . . . is usually reserved for those cases in which the complaint is so confused, ambiguous, vague, or otherwise unintelligble that its true substance, if any, is well disguised." (citation omitted)).
WHEREFORE, it is hereby
RECOMMENDED, that this action be dismissed due to Plaintiff's failure to state a claim and to comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 10; and it is further
ORDERED, that the Clerk serve a copy of this Report-Recommendation and Order on Plaintiff by certified mail to the address listed in the caption above.
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(e).
Date: October 5, 2011
Albany, New York
RANDOLPH F. TREECE
United States Magistrate Judge