Anduze v. City of New York

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedFebruary 26, 2021
Docket1:21-cv-00519
StatusUnknown

This text of Anduze v. City of New York (Anduze v. City of New York) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Anduze v. City of New York, (S.D.N.Y. 2021).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK JAHMANNI ANDUZE, Plaintiff, 21-CV-0519 (LLS) -against- ORDER TO AMEND THE CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants. LOUIS L. STANTON, United States District Judge: Plaintiff, currently detained in the George R. Vierno Center on Rikers Island, brings this pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Defendants violated his federal constitutional rights. By order dated February 17, 2021, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed without prepayment of fees, that is, in forma pauperis (“IFP”).1 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 Prison Litigation Reform Act requires that federal courts screen complaints brought by prisoners who seek relief against a governmental entity or an officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a prisoner’s in forma pauperis complaint, or any portion of the complaint, that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon 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), 1915A(b); see Abbas v. Dixon, 480 F.3d 636, 639 (2d Cir. 2007). The Court must also dismiss a complaint if the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).

1 Prisoners are not exempt from paying the full filing fee even when they have been granted permission to proceed IFP. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). 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. The Supreme Court has held that under Rule 8, a complaint must 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’s complaint, which is type-written and appears to have been photocopied, is difficult to read, and pages 21 to 47 of the complaint are virtually illegible. From what the Court is able to discern, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants retaliated against him because he was housed in the same unit as another inmate, Alexander Williams, who has filed civil rights actions against correction officers. Plaintiff alleges that, in retaliation for Williams’ lawsuits, Defendants denied Plaintiff access to daily showers and a razor for shaving, restricted his ability to purchase items at the commissary, interfered with his mail, and restricted his ability to make phone calls to his family and lawyer. The complaint includes many additional pages of factual allegations that the Court is unable to read due to the quality of the photocopied complaint. Plaintiff appears to seek injunctive relief, but the specific relief he seeks is illegible. (See

id. at 43.) It is unclear what, if any, other relief he seeks. DISCUSSION Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a complaint to make a short and plain statement showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. Because the function of the pleadings is to ensure that defendants receive fair notice of the claims against them and the grounds on which they rest, the allegations must be plainly stated. See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). An inadequately pleaded complaint that is “so poorly composed as to be functionally illegible” is subject to dismissal under Rule 8. Schuster v. Oppleman, No. 96 Civ. 1689 (JGK), 1999 WL 9845, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 11, 1999); see Barsella v. United States, 135 F.R.D. 64, 66 (S.D.N.Y. 1991) (policy requiring courts to liberally construe

pro se complaints “does not mandate that a court sustain every pro se complaint even if it is incoherent, rambling, and unreadable”). The Court has closely scrutinized the complaint, but because much of the pleading is illegible, the Court is unable to properly evaluate the full nature and extent of Plaintiff’s claims at this time. Nor does the complaint put Defendants on notice of the allegations against them. Because the defects in Plaintiff’s complaint may be cured with an amended complaint, the Court grants Plaintiff an opportunity to submit a legible amended complaint. The amended complaint should be either typewritten or printed by hand in a neat and legible manner. Plaintiff should make sure that each page of the amended complaint is legible. If Plaintiff fails to submit a legible amended complaint within sixty days, the Court will dismiss the complaint without prejudice. LEAVE TO AMEND Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint to legibly detail his claims. In the statement of claim, Plaintiff must provide a short and plain statement of the relevant facts

supporting each claim against each defendant named in the amended complaint. Plaintiff is also directed to provide the addresses for any named defendants.

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

Related

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)
Abbas v. Dixon
480 F.3d 636 (Second Circuit, 2007)
Barsella v. United States
135 F.R.D. 64 (S.D. New York, 1991)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Anduze v. City of New York, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anduze-v-city-of-new-york-nysd-2021.