Andrews v. Green

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided August 7, 2019·No. 1:19-cv-05622·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK MICHAEL D. ANDREWS, Plaintiff, 1:19-CV-5622 (CM) -against- ORDERTO AMEND DHS; THERESA GREEN; NYPD; JAMES G. CLYNES; HRA, Defendants. COLLEEN McMAHON, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiff, appearing pro se, brings this complaint but fails to allege any facts. By order dated July 22, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed without prepayment of fees, that is, in forma pauperis.For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint within sixty days of the date of this order. STANDARD OF REVIEW The Court must dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint, or portion thereof, 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.SeeFed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). While the law mandates dismissal on any of these grounds, the Court is obliged to construe pro sepleadings 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). BACKGROUND Plaintiff uses the Court’s general complaint form, but he fails to allege any facts. Rather, he attaches five documents indicatingthat the complaint concerns various unrelated matters. He names as defendantsTheresa Green, who moved for an order of protection against him; James G. Clynes, the judge who granted the request for an order of protection; the Department of

Homeless Services (DHS); the New York City Police Department (NYPD); and the Human Resources Administration (HRA)for the City of New York. Thedocuments suggest that the complaint concerns: (1) theorder of protectionissued against him (“order-of-protection claim”); (2) a New York City Department of Social Services (DSS) decision regarding his benefits (“benefits claim”); (3) an unidentified case where Plaintiff was represented (“unidentified case claim”); (4) an assault involving Plaintiff’s arm being hit by a baton (“assault claim”); and (5) his criminal case that involves the order of protection(“criminal case claim”). The documents that Plaintiff attaches are: (1) theMay 23, 2019 order of protectionissued by Defendant Judge James G. Clynes ordering Plaintiff to stay away from Defendant Theresa Green, who may be a city employee

(ECF No. 2 at 8); (2) a letter from Rubenstein & Rynecki (R&R), a law firm representing Plaintiff in the unidentified case claim,informing him of his October 26, 2018 trial date. (ECF No. 2 at 9.) On that letter, Plaintiff handwrote: “My lawyer help[ed] them cover it up.” (Id.); (3) the first page of a decision from DSS regarding his public assistance benefits (ECF No. 2 at 10); (4) a September 22, 2017 medical report from Mount Sinai regarding an x-ray of Plaintiff’s arm after he was allegedly struck with a baton (ECF No. 2 at 11); and (5) a May 11, 2019 court case data entry indicating that Plaintiff was charged with assault, and a related court appearance ticket directing him to appear in Criminal Court of the City of New York on June 20, 2019. (ECF No. 2, at 12, 13.) Publicly available records show that police arrested Plaintiff on September 21, 2017, and charged him with assault with intent to cause physical injury, a Class A misdemeanor. See People

v. Andrews, No. 2017NY054635 (N.Y. Crim. Ct.). Theserecords also show that a temporary order of protection was issued on November 20, 2017, and that Judge Clynes issued a warrant on May 22, 2019. Id. On June 28, 2019, Plaintiff filed another action in this Court against R&R and HRA, asserting claims related to his “case.”1 See Andrews v. Coalition for the Homeless,ECF 1:19-CV- 6070, 2 (S.D.N.Y., complaint filed on June 28, 2019).From the facts alleged in the 19-CV-6070 case, it appears that Plaintiff has accused Theresa Green, a “city employee,” of attacking him. Id. (ECFNo. 2 at 5.) DISCUSSION A. Plaintiff fails to comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Plaintiff’s complaint does not comply with Rule 8 because he does not state facts

showing that he is entitled to relief. Rule 8 requires a complaint to make a short and plain statement showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. A complaint states a claim for relief if the claim is plausible. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). To review a complaint for plausibility, the Court accepts all well-pleaded factual allegations as true and draws all reasonable inferences in the pleader’s

1 On the same day, Plaintiff filedanother action in this Court concerning his housing, that appears to be unrelated. See Andrews v. City of New York,ECF 1:19-CV-6069,2(S.D.N.Y., complaint filed on June 28, 2019). favor. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). But the Court need not accept “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action,” which are essentially legal conclusions. Id. at 678 (citing 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.

First, Plaintiff does not state any facts in support of any of his claims. Second, to the extent Plaintiff intended to bring claims related to the attached documents, those attachments are not a substitute for a statement of facts. In addition to Plaintiff’s failure to comply with Rule 8, he names parties that are either immune or are not suable entities,and he attaches documents concerningfiveunrelated issues. In light of these deficiencies, the Court: (1) dismisses Plaintiff’s criminal case claim under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971); (2) dismisses the benefits claim without prejudice to Plaintiff’s refiling it in a new civil action; (3) declines to construe the complaint as raising a claim against R&R; (4) dismisses from the action Judge Clynes under the doctrine of judicial

immunity; (5) dismisses from the action the NYPD, DHS, and the HRA as nonsuableentities and substitutes the City of New York for these defendants under Fed. R. Civ. P. 21; and (6) grants Plaintiff leave to amend his complaint to state facts in support of his order-of-protection claim and his assault claim. B.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Andrews v. Green, (S.D.N.Y. 2019).

Andrews v. Green (Andrews v. Green) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Coppedge v. United States
369 U.S. 438 (Supreme Court, 1962)
Goldberg v. Kelly
397 U.S. 254 (Supreme Court, 1970)
Younger v. Harris
401 U.S. 37 (Supreme Court, 1971)
Gibson v. Berryhill
411 U.S. 564 (Supreme Court, 1973)
Stump v. Sparkman
435 U.S. 349 (Supreme Court, 1978)
Mireles v. Waco
502 U.S. 9 (Supreme Court, 1991)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (Supreme Court, 2007)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court, 2009)
Harris v. Mills
572 F.3d 66 (Second Circuit, 2009)
Ghaly v. United States Department of Agriculture
228 F. Supp. 2d 283 (S.D. New York, 2002)
Emerson v. City of New York
740 F. Supp. 2d 385 (S.D. New York, 2010)
Sprint Commc'ns, Inc. v. Jacobs
134 S. Ct. 584 (Supreme Court, 2013)
Diblasio v. Novello
344 F.3d 292 (Second Circuit, 2003)
Jenkins v. City of New York
478 F.3d 76 (Second Circuit, 2007)