Opinion
22-CV-8009 (LTS)
05-01-2023
ALPHONSO SYVILLE, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants.
ORDER TO AMEND
LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff, who is appearing pro se, brings this action invoking the Court's federal question jurisdiction and alleging that Defendants violated his federally protected rights. By order dated October 7, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), that is, without prepayment of fees. For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint within 60 days of the date of this order.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Court must dismiss an IFP complaint, or any portion of the complaint, that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see Livingston v. Adirondack Beverage Co., 141 F.3d 434, 437 (2d Cir. 1998). The Court must also dismiss a complaint when the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction of the claims raised. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).
While the law mandates dismissal on any of these grounds, the Court is obliged to construe pro se pleadings liberally, Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir. 2009), and interpret them to raise the “strongest [claims] that they suggest,” Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (emphasis in original). But the “special solicitude” in pro se cases, id. at 475 (citation omitted), has its limits -to state a claim, pro se pleadings still must comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires a complaint to make a short and plain statement showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.
Rule 8 requires a complaint to include enough facts to state a claim for relief “that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim is facially plausible if the plaintiff pleads enough factual detail to allow the Court to draw the inference that the defendant is liable for the alleged misconduct. In reviewing the complaint, the Court must accept all well-pleaded factual allegations as true. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009). But it does not have to accept as true “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action,” which are essentially just legal conclusions. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. After separating legal conclusions from well-pleaded factual allegations, the Court must determine whether those facts make it plausible - not merely possible - that the pleader is entitled to relief. Id.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff brings this action against (1) the City of New York, (2) Paul Hargrow, an employee of the New York City Department of Homeless Services (“DHS”), and (3) Smila Kodali, an employee of the New York City Health + Hospitals Corporation at “Elmhurst Medical Department” in Upper Manhattan.(ECF 2, at 3.) Plaintiff asserts that Defendants have discriminated, harassed, and retaliated against him in violation of multiple federal statutes, including 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), the “Human Rights Act,” the Fair Housing Act, and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”). (Id.) Plaintiff states that his claims arise from events occurring inside DHS's shelters and hotels during the COVID-19 pandemic, from March 2020, to May 2021. For the facts underlying his claims, Plaintiff writes “See complaint and paperwork,” but he does not attach to the complaint any documents with factual allegations. (Id. at 4.) As his injuries, Plaintiff lists “mental anguish, anxiety, depression, traumatized, scared, fighting for [his] life, [and] stress.” (Id. at 5.) He seeks $5 million in damages.
The Court notes that, in 2020, Plaintiff filed an action in this court in which he sued the three defendants named in this new complaint. See Syville v. City of New York, No. 20-CV-4633 (PGG) (JLC) (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 31, 2022) (Syville I). In that action, Plaintiff alleged discrimination and retaliation in the provision of shelter services. On October 28, 2022, Judge Paul G. Gardephe adopted Magistrate Judge James L. Cott's Report and Recommendation (id., ECF 57), which recommended that the defendants' motion to dismiss be converted to one for summary judgement and that the defendants' summary judgment motion be granted (id., ECF 66). Judge Cott had found that on June 17, 2020 - the day before Plaintiff filed Syville I - Plaintiff had executed a General Release with the City in another case that barred him from bringing civil rights claims that arose before June 17, 2020, against the City or its employees. Id. at 13. Judge Cott determined that Plaintiff's claims in Syville I were premised on conduct that occurred prior to June 17, 2020, and were therefore covered by the General Release. Judge Gardephe agreed with Judge Cott, finding that the General Release was enforceable in Syville I, and granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on that basis. (Id. at 17.)
DISCUSSION
The complaint does not comply with Rule 8's requirement that it provide a short and plain statement showing that Plaintiff is entitled to relief. Plaintiff's complaint, which appears to be incomplete, does not allege any facts from which the Court can discern the claims he is seeking to bring against Defendants. The Court therefore grants Plaintiff 60 days' leave to file an amended complaint.
Plaintiff is granted leave to amend his complaint to provide facts about his claims against Defendants. In the “Statement of Claim” section of the amended complaint form, Plaintiff must provide a short and plain statement of the relevant facts supporting each claim against each defendant. If Plaintiff has an address for any named defendant, Plaintiff must provide it. Plaintiff should include all of the information in the amended complaint that Plaintiff wants the Court to consider in deciding whether the amended complaint states a claim for relief. That information should include:
a) the names and titles of all relevant people;
b) a description of all relevant events, including what each defendant did or failed to do, the approximate date and time of each event, and the general location where each event occurred;
c) a description of the injuries Plaintiff suffered; and
d) the relief Plaintiff seeks, such as money damages, injunctive relief, or declaratory relief.
Essentially, Plaintiff's amended complaint should tell the Court: who violated his federally protected rights and how; when and where such violations occurred; and why Plaintiff is entitled to relief. Plaintiff's amended complaint will completely replace, not supplement, the original complaint.
Plaintiff may consider contacting the New York Legal Assistance Group's (“NYLAG”) Clinic for Pro Se Litigants in the Southern District of New York, which is a free legal clinic staffed by attorneys and paralegals to assist those who are representing themselves in civil lawsuits in this court. The clinic is run by a private organization; it is not part of, or run by, the court. It cannot accept filings on behalf of the court, which must still be made by any pro se party through the Pro Se Intake Unit. A copy of the flyer with details of the clinic is attached to this order.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint that complies with the standards set forth above. Plaintiff must submit the amended complaint to this Court's Pro Se Intake Unit within 60 days of the date of this order, caption the document as an “Amended Complaint,” and label the document with docket number 22-CV-8009 (LTS). An Amended Complaint form is attached to this order. No summons will issue at this time. If Plaintiff fails to comply within the time allowed, and he cannot show good cause to excuse such failure, the complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore IFP status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. Cf. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962) (holding that an appellant demonstrates good faith when he seeks review of a nonfrivolous issue).
SO ORDERED.