Baker v. Peters

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedFebruary 22, 2023
Docket1:23-cv-01069
StatusUnknown

This text of Baker v. Peters (Baker v. Peters) 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
Baker v. Peters, (S.D.N.Y. 2023).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK MELODY JOY BAKER, Plaintiff, -against- 23-CV-1069 (LTS) JAMES J. PETERS DEPARTMENT OF ORDER TO AMEND VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL CENTER, et al. Defendants. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, brings this action invoking the Court’s federal question jurisdiction. She alleges that she was discriminated against due to her sex and subjected to “elder abuse.” By order dated February 8, 2023, 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 in forma pauperis 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. BACKGROUND Plaintiff Melody Baker alleges the following facts. In May 2022, Plaintiff met with Rita Riveria, her case manager for the Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing (VASH) program for homeless veterans. At their first meeting, Riveria told Plaintiff that she would be helping her with housing, described the paperwork involved, “mentioned NYCHA,” that is, the New York City Housing Authority, and left. At the next meeting, Plaintiff “found out that she would not be getting housing required for her disabilities.” (ECF 2 at 5.) Plaintiff further alleges: In the 5 months of my voucher duration, I was left in shelters where I was beaten, left on street, abandoned, stranded, stolen from, by HUD-VASH, abused by HUD- VASH, finally admitted to the VA Hospital. (Id.) At one of the Veterans Affairs Hospitals (possibly the James J. Peters Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Bronx County, New York, which is named as a defendant), someone denied Plaintiff her “proper diet,” “the right to take part in the wheelchair games,” and “the right to proper medical care.” (Id.) The reason for this, she alleges, is “because [she is] female, and the hospital is still predominantly male dominate[d].” (Id.) She also alleges that HUD-VASH engaged in “elder abuse” against her. Plaintiff brings this suit against “HUD-VASH”; Rita Riveria; Theresa Santiago, who is identified as a HUD-VASH Supervising Case Manager; John Doe #1, who is identified as a HUD-VASH Administrative Director; Anthony Moldanado; and the James J. Peters Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center. Plaintiff seeks an order that “the hospital [is] required to

become equal in all aspects,” and an order that defendants be “arrested, charged, and tried.” (Id. at 6.) DISCUSSION A. Short and Plain Statement of Facts Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 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. Here, Plaintiff alleges that she was discriminated against because of her sex. She does not plead enough factual detail, however, to support this legal conclusion. It is unclear from the allegations of the complaint what happened to Plaintiff that could give rise to the inference that she was discriminated against because of her sex. Plaintiff also does not include any facts to support her conclusion that she was subjected to “elder abuse.” Plaintiff alleges that she was “left on [the] street, abandoned, stranded, [and] stolen from” but does not give enough information about what happened, such as who was involved, what those who were involved did or failed to do, or when or where this happened, to enable the Court to evaluate whether she may have been the target of sex or age discrimination. Moreover, a plaintiff must plead facts showing how each defendant was personally

involved in violating her rights. Here, Plaintiff does not allege what each defendant did or failed to do that violated her rights. Some defendants, such as Theresa Santiago and Anthony Moldanado, are named in the caption but are not mentioned at all in the body of the complaint; thus, there are no facts about what these defendants are alleged to have done or failed to do. B. Prosecuting Criminal Charges The relief that Plaintiff seeks (that the defendants be “arrested, charged, and tried”) is not available to her in this Court. Plaintiff cannot initiate the arrest and prosecution of an individual in this Court because “the decision to prosecute is solely within the discretion of the prosecutor.” Leeke v. Timmerman, 454 U.S. 83, 87 (1981). Nor can Plaintiff direct prosecuting attorneys to initiate a criminal proceeding against the defendants, because prosecutors possess discretionary authority to bring criminal actions, and they are “immune from control or interference by citizen

or court.” Conn. Action Now, Inc. v. Roberts Plating Co., 457 F.2d 81, 87 (2d Cir. 1972). Accordingly, this relief is unavailable, and the Court dismisses these claims because Plaintiff lacks standing to pursue such relief. LEAVE TO AMEND Plaintiff proceeds in this matter without the benefit of an attorney.

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

Related

Coppedge v. United States
369 U.S. 438 (Supreme Court, 1962)
Leeke v. Timmerman
454 U.S. 83 (Supreme Court, 1982)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (Supreme Court, 2007)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court, 2009)
Hill v. Curcione
657 F.3d 116 (Second Circuit, 2011)
Harris v. Mills
572 F.3d 66 (Second Circuit, 2009)
Cuoco v. Moritsugu
222 F.3d 99 (Second Circuit, 2000)
Salahuddin v. Cuomo
861 F.2d 40 (Second Circuit, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Baker v. Peters, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baker-v-peters-nysd-2023.