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
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. District courts generally should grant a self-represented plaintiff an opportunity to amend a complaint to cure its defects, unless amendment would be futile. See Hill v. Curcione, 657 F.3d 116, 123-24 (2d Cir. 2011); Salahuddin v. Cuomo, 861 F.2d 40, 42 (2d Cir. 1988). Indeed, the Second Circuit has cautioned that district courts “should not dismiss [a pro se complaint] without granting leave to amend at least once when a liberal reading of the complaint gives any indication that a valid claim might be stated.” Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99, 112 (2d Cir. 2000) (quoting Gomez v. USAA Fed. Sav. Bank, 171 F.3d 794, 795 (2d Cir. 1999)). Because Plaintiff may be able to allege additional facts to state a valid claim, the Court grants Plaintiff 60 days’ leave to amend her
complaint to detail her claims. 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 her federally protected rights; how, when, and where such violations occurred; and why Plaintiff is entitled to relief. Because Plaintiff’s amended complaint will completely replace, not supplement, the original complaint, any facts or claims that Plaintiff wants to include from the original complaint must be repeated in the amended complaint. Plaintiff may wish to consider contacting the New York Legal Assistance Group’s (NYLAG) Legal Clinic for Pro Se Litigants in the Southern District of New York. This is a free legal clinic staffed by attorneys and paralegals to assist those who are representing themselves in civil lawsuits in this court. A copy of the flyer with details of the clinic is attached to this order.
The clinic is currently available only by telephone. 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 sixty days of the date of this order, caption the document as an “Amended Complaint,” and label the document with docket number 23-CV-1069 (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 she 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 in forma pauperis 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. Dated: February 22, 2023 New York, New York
/s/ Laura Taylor Swain LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN Chief United States District Judge UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
CVE TT a (clu ber if has b Write the full name of each plaintiff. evened) me eNews
against AMENDED
□ COMPLAINT ee Do you want a jury trial? LlYes ULINo
Write the full name of each defendant. If you need more space, please write “see attached” in the space above and attach an additional sheet of paper with the full list of names. The names listed above must be identical to those contained in Section Il.
NOTICE The public can access electronic court files. For privacy and security reasons, papers filed with the court should therefore not contain: an individual’s full social security number or full birth date; the full name of a person known to be a minor; or a complete financial account number. A filing may include only: the last four digits of a social security number; the year of an individual’s birth; a minor’s initials; and the last four digits of a financial account number. See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2.
Rev. 2/10/17
I. BASIS FOR JURISDICTION Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction (limited power). Generally, only two types of cases can be heard in federal court: cases involving a federal question and cases involving diversity of citizenship of the parties. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, a case arising under the United States Constitution or federal laws or treaties is a federal question case. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, a case in which a citizen of one State sues a citizen of another State or nation, and the amount in controversy is more than $75,000, is a diversity case. In a diversity case, no defendant may be a citizen of the same State as any plaintiff. What is the basis for federal-court jurisdiction in your case? [] Federal Question L] Diversity of Citizenship A. If you checked Federal Question Which of your federal constitutional or federal statutory rights have been violated?
B. If you checked Diversity of Citizenship 1. Citizenship of the parties Of what State is each party a citizen? The plaintiff , ,is a citizen of the State of (Plaintiff's name)
(State in which the person resides and intends to remain.) or, if not lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States, a citizen or subject of the foreign state of
If more than one plaintiff is named in the complaint, attach additional pages providing information for each additional plaintiff.
Page 2
If the defendant is an individual:
The defendant, , is a citizen of the State of (Defendant’s name)
or, if not lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States, a citizen or subject of the foreign state of . If the defendant is a corporation: The defendant, , is incorporated under the laws of the State of and has its principal place of business in the State of or is incorporated under the laws of (foreign state) and has its principal place of business in . If more than one defendant is named in the complaint, attach additional pages providing information for each additional defendant.
II. PARTIES A. Plaintiff Information Provide the following information for each plaintiff named in the complaint. Attach additional pages if needed.
First Name Middle Initial Last Name
Street Address
County, City State Zip Code
Telephone Number Email Address (if available) B. Defendant Information To the best of your ability, provide addresses where each defendant may be served. If the correct information is not provided, it could delay or prevent service of the complaint on the defendant. Make sure that the defendants listed below are the same as those listed in the caption. Attach additional pages if needed. Defendant 1: First Name Last Name
Current Job Title (or other identifying information)
Current Work Address (or other address where defendant may be served)
County, City State Zip Code Defendant 2: First Name Last Name
Current Work Address (or other address where defendant may be served)
County, City State Zip Code Defendant 3: First Name Last Name
Current Work Address (or other address where defendant may be served)
County, City State Zip Code Defendant 4: First Name Last Name
Current Work Address (or other address where defendant may be served)
County, City State Zip Code III. STATEMENT OF CLAIM Place(s) of occurrence:
Date(s) of occurrence: FACTS: State here briefly the FACTS that support your case. Describe what happened, how you were harmed, and what each defendant personally did or failed to do that harmed you. Attach additional pages if needed. INJURIES: If you were injured as a result of these actions, describe your injuries and what medical treatment, if any, you required and received.
IV. RELIEF State briefly what money damages or other relief you want the court to order. V. PLAINTIFF’S CERTIFICATION AND WARNINGS By signing below, I certify to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief that: (1) the complaint is not being presented for an improper purpose (such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation); (2) the claims are supported by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument to change existing law; (3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and (4) the complaint otherwise complies with the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. agree to notify the Clerk's Office in writing of any changes to my mailing address. I understand that my failure to keep a current address on file with the Clerk's Office may result in the dismissal of my case.
Each Plaintiff must sign and date the complaint. Attach additional pages if necessary. If seeking to proceed without prepayment of fees, each plaintiff must also submit an IFP application.
Dated Plaintiff's Signature
Telephone Number Email Address (if available)
I have read the Pro Se (Nonprisoner) Consent to Receive Documents Electronically: OYes [LINo If you do consent to receive documents electronically, submit the completed form with your complaint. If you do not consent, please do not attach the form.
Page 7