Bralich v. Fox News Network, LLC

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedDecember 9, 2020
Docket1:20-cv-09161
StatusUnknown

This text of Bralich v. Fox News Network, LLC (Bralich v. Fox News Network, LLC) 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
Bralich v. Fox News Network, LLC, (S.D.N.Y. 2020).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK PHILIP A. BRALICH, Plaintiff, -against- 20-CV-9161 (LLS) FOX NEWS NETWORK, LLC; MSNBC; CNN WORLDWIDE; REPUBLICAN NATIONAL ORDER TO AMEND PARTY; DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL PARTY; DONALD J. TRUMP, Defendants. LOUIS L. STANTON, United States District Judge: Plaintiff brings this action pro se. By order dated November 19, 2020, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed without prepayment of fees, that is, in forma pauperis (“IFP”). 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 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. 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. 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 The following allegations are taken from the complaint, which is lengthy and unfocused. Plaintiff begins, Since the announcement of the candidacy of Governor Ronald Reagan for President on November 13, 1979 for the 1980 election for the office of President of the United States of America, the herein named defendants and a great cohort of many like them have knowingly and willingly and with great malice of forethought violated every and all principles of responsible, first amendment protected speech to engage in the most egregious and vile hate speech and bigotry in regards to political opponents and parties, the poor, indigent, academics, and a number of other unprotected classes (from the point of view of established civil rights) for over fifty years to destroy family lives, social lives, and careers of said opponents and their employers, employees, and affiliated parties in an effort to gain unfair advantage in the advancement and maintenance of their own careers and net worth and to gain political office at the expense of the greater principles and laws of the United States and its citizens and residents and to the great detriment of these unprotected classes, the citizens of the United States, and its laws and principles. (Id. at 6-7.)1 In short, it is as though they have gathered together all the hatred and bigotry that had previously been directed toward the recognized and identified protected classes and simply gathered it together, relished in it, and redirected it toward new targets from unprotected and as yet not clearly defined classes such as academics, political parties of affiliations, and the indigent, and have dispensed with all of their education, training, and reserve in order to take advantage of the unrecognized-by-the-law classes to gain unfair political and economic advantages for themselves and their cohorts and to ‘get away with it’ through their knowledge of which are and which are not protected classes and the ability to affect a different tone and demeanor with each. In this activity, they are arrogantly and deliberately flaunting the laws they are sworn to protect or at least claim to protect if not sworn to do so in the very faces of the citizenry and legal institutions of the United States, and they openly scoff at, deride, and then target for the same discriminatory behaviors, those responsible authorities who seeks to curtail their behaviors. (Id. at 7.) Defendants have through deliberate organization, planning, marketing, advertising, reporting, recruiting, hiring, publishing, and expense created a hostile environment throughout the nation, beginning from within their workplaces in their corporations and the U.S Government via their stars, guests, producers, recruiters, advertisers, and colleagues through to that of their viewing audiences and from them to every workplace, home, and social environment both public and private throughout the nation. (Id. at 8.) Plaintiff “first notice[d]” this “level of harassment for beyond the norms of civil behavior in November of 1982,” following a one-year trip to Japan. (Id.) He alleges that “a minor but quite noticeable handicap in the form of a distinct limp and a crooked tibia which is noticeable to a viewer as well as a slightly staggered gait and leaning stance” have made him “a particularly

1 Page numbers refer to those generated by the Court’s electronic filing system. easy to recognize and identify target of the discrimination described herein, and this has been overtly and widely admitted by the offenders as the source of their particular focus on him.” (Id. at 8-9.) Plaintiff asks the Court to “redefin[e] civil rights in a manner without a reference to particular groups.” (Id. at 10.) Under such a redefinition, “further cases like this one will be

prevented as the problem of the abuses of hate speech, bigotry, and discrimination by the defendants and their like toward unrecognized classes will have been resolved.” (Id.) Despite “sound education, training and experience,” Plaintiff’s “resume is riddled with gaps of between a few months or a year or more in which he could not work in his chosen career of linguistics/language teaching.” (Id.

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

Related

Leeke v. Timmerman
454 U.S. 83 (Supreme Court, 1982)
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife
504 U.S. 555 (Supreme Court, 1992)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (Supreme Court, 2007)
Lance v. Coffman
549 U.S. 437 (Supreme Court, 2007)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court, 2009)
Wilma Prezzi v. Birg. Gen. L. J. Schelter
469 F.2d 691 (Second Circuit, 1972)
Hill v. Curcione
657 F.3d 116 (Second Circuit, 2011)
Ralph A. Emmanuelli v. Reince Priebus
500 F. App'x 886 (Eleventh Circuit, 2012)
Sykes v. Bank of America
723 F.3d 399 (Second Circuit, 2013)
Harris v. Mills
572 F.3d 66 (Second Circuit, 2009)
Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins
578 U.S. 330 (Supreme Court, 2016)
Gill v. Whitford
585 U.S. 48 (Supreme Court, 2018)
Cuoco v. Moritsugu
222 F.3d 99 (Second Circuit, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Bralich v. Fox News Network, LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bralich-v-fox-news-network-llc-nysd-2020.