Calderon v. Doe

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedAugust 19, 2024
Docket1:24-cv-03991
StatusUnknown

This text of Calderon v. Doe (Calderon v. Doe) 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
Calderon v. Doe, (S.D.N.Y. 2024).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK SAMANTHA CALDERON, Plaintiff, 24-CV-3991 (LTS) -against- ORDER TO AMEND JOHN DOE; JOHN DOE; MUNAPLITY/ COPERATE QUO/8.30G, Defendants. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiff Samantha Calderon, who is proceeding pro se, brings this action invoking the Court’s federal question jurisdiction. By order dated May 24, 2024, 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 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 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.

Rule 8 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. BACKGROUND Named as Defendants in this complaint are two John Does and “Munaplity/Coperate

Quo/8.30g.” (ECF 1.) Plaintiff used the court’s general complaint form, on which she wrote only “see attached,” and to which are attached are more than 600 pages of documents, including photographs; checks from Webster Bank in Waterbury, Connecticut showing a full account number; tax forms; an application for food stamps; Plaintiff’s learner’s permit and birth certificate; emails between Plaintiff and various entities, including Praxis Housing and Liberty Mutual; documents from a Bronx Family Court matter that include the full name of Plaintiff’s minor child; texts with a “case worker”; handwritten pages about an incident involving the police; and several documents entitled “complaint” and “claims” that appear to be about a variety of matters involving multiple different parties. (ECF 1 and 1-1.) Plaintiff does not specify the nature of the relief that she seeks from the Court. Plaintiff does not provide a mailing address in her complaint, but she includes three email addresses. (ECF 1 at 8.) Upon opening this new action, the Clerk’s Office docketed the court’s

March 18, 2024 Standing Order, directing all self-represented litigants to inform the court of any change of address or electronic contact information. See In Re: Cases Filed By Pro Se Plaintiffs, This Matter Relates To: Duty of Self-Represented Parties to Keep Address Information Current, No. 24-MC-127 (LTS) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 18, 2024). On May 30, 2024, Plaintiff submitted a request for documents, stating that she filed the originals with the Court as attachments to the complaint. (ECF 6.) Plaintiff indicates in that submission that she has “no address.” (Id. at 1.) DISCUSSION A. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2 The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that court filings include only the year of a person’s birth, and only the last four digits of any financial accounts. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(a)(2), (4). Rule 5.2(a)(3) requires that any court submissions referring to a minor must only

include the minor’s initials. Attachments to Plaintiff’s complaint include the full name of Plaintiff’s minor child as well as Plaintiff’s date of birth and full account numbers for financial accounts. The Court has directed the Clerk of Court to limit electronic access to the complaint (ECF 1) to a “case-participant only” basis. Because court records are public, Plaintiff should refrain from filing documents containing personal information. Going forward, Plaintiff must comply with Rule 5.2(a)(3) when submitting any future documents by redacting (omitting, blacking out, or otherwise making unreadable) any such personal information. B. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 Plaintiff’s complaint does not satisfy federal pleading rules. She does not provide a short and plain statement showing that she is entitled to relief, as is required by Rule 8, or include any facts explaining who defendants are or what they did to violate her rights. In order to state a claim for relief, a complaint must contain enough facts to allow the Court to reasonably infer that

the defendant is liable to the plaintiff. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (2009) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). The Court understands that Plaintiff is claiming that Defendants unlawfully harmed her, but because it is unclear from the complaint what happened or how Defendants allegedly violated Plaintiff’s rights, she fails to state a claim for relief. Plaintiff provided the Court with hundreds of pages of documents without explaining their relevance to the events giving rise to this complaint. The Court grants Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint to provide facts explaining who Defendants are, what occurred, and the nature of the relief she seeks. C.

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)
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)
Collins v. Goord
438 F. Supp. 2d 399 (S.D. New York, 2006)
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)
Calderon v. Doe, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/calderon-v-doe-nysd-2024.