Chavez v. Finney

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided July 15, 2019·No. 1:19-cv-04109·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK CHIEF MAESTRO CHAVEZ, d/b/a Reason, Logic & Law; PLAINTIFF UNDER SEAL; JOHN/JANE DOE 1-9, et al., Plaintiffs, 19-CV-4109 (LLS) -against- ORDER TO AMEND SGT. FINNEY, #3281, 3271; THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK; JOHN/JANE DOES 1-789, Defendants. LOUIS L. STANTON, United States District Judge: Plaintiff, appearing pro se, filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his civil rights, along with an application 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 60 days of the date of this order. Any amended complaint must include Plaintiff’s real name, correct address, and signature.1 The Court grants Plaintiff IFP status for the limited purpose of responding to this order. STANDARD OF REVIEW The Court must dismiss an IFP complaint, or portion thereof, 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

1 It is unclear how many plaintiffs are bringing this action, but the complaint uses the singular “Plaintiff” and the male pronoun. Accordingly, the Court also refers to a single Plaintiff and uses the male pronoun. 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).

BACKGROUND Plaintiff captions this action as being brought on behalf of “Plaintiff Under Seal, John/Jane DOE 1-9, et al.” (ECF No. 2, at 1.) The first page of the complaint inexplicably includes an address block for the clerk of Judge Johnson of the Supreme Court of Queens County, along with a case number and what is labeled as a “custody” number. (Id.) Below the Queens Court address block Plaintiff “cc’s” “c/o d/b/a Reason, Logic & Law,” located at “322 W. 48th St. (Local 802 AFM), Manhattan, NY.” (Id.) The return address on the envelope received by the Clerk’s office indicates that the complaint was mailed by “Chief Maestro Chavez, c/o AFM Local 802, 322 W. 48th St., Manhattan, NY 10036.” (Id. at 12.) Plaintiff signed his complaint “John Doe 1-9, Sui Juris.” (Id. at 9.)

Plaintiff also filed an IFP application that includes the same addresses for Judge Johnson’s clerk and Reason, Logic & Law that are listed on the complaint. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff signed his IFP application “John Doe 1-9.” (Id.) In his complaint, Plaintiff makes a number of allegations relating to what he claims was a false arrest. He sues “Sgt. Finney, #3281, #3171, The People of the State of NY, John/Jane Does 1-789, et al.” DISCUSSION A. Plaintiff’s Name and Signature Rule 10(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[t]he title of [a] complaint must name all the parties.” “This requirement . . . serves the vital purpose of facilitating public scrutiny of judicial proceedings and therefore cannot be set aside lightly.” Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant, 537 F.3d 185, 188-89 (2d Cir. 2008). Courts, however, have

permitted parties to proceed anonymously in a limited number of exceptions. In deciding whether to permit a party to proceed anonymously, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has articulated a nonexhaustive list of ten factors that courts should consider: (1) whether the litigation involves matters that are highly sensitive and of a personal nature; (2) whether identification poses a risk of retaliatory physical or mental harm to the party seeking to proceed anonymously or even more critically, to innocent non-parties; (3) whether identification presents other harms and the likely severity of those harms, including whether the injury litigated against would be incurred as a result of the disclosure of plaintiff’s identity; (4) whether the plaintiff is particularly vulnerable to the possible harms of disclosure, particularly in light of his age; (5) whether the suit is challenging the actions of the government or that of private parties; (6) whether the defendant is prejudiced by allowing the plaintiff to press his claims anonymously, whether the nature of that prejudice (if any) differs at any particular stage of the litigation, and whether any prejudice can be mitigated by the district court; (7) whether the plaintiff’s identity has thus far been kept confidential; (8) whether the public’s interest in the litigation is furthered by requiring the plaintiff to disclose his identity; (9) whether, because of the purely legal nature of the issues presented or otherwise, there is an atypically weak public interest in knowing the litigants’ identities; and (10) whether there are any alternative mechanisms for protecting the confidentiality of the plaintiff.

Id. at 190 (alterations, ellipses, quotation marks, and citations omitted). Rule 11(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[e]very pleading, written motion, and other paper must be signed by at least one attorney of record in the attorney’s name – or by a party personally if the party is unrepresented.” See also Local Civil Rule 11.1(a). The Supreme Court has interpreted Rule 11(a) to require “as it did in John Hancock’s day, a name handwritten (or a mark handplaced).” Becker v. Montgomery, 532 U.S. 757, 764 (2001). Plaintiff fails to include his name and signature on the complaint or IFP application. Plaintiff also fails provide any reason why the Court should permit him to proceed anonymously. If Plaintiff wishes to proceed with this action, he must file an amended complaint that complies

with the instructions set forth below within 60 days of the date of this order. B. Multiple Plaintiffs The statute governing appearances in federal court, 28 U.S.C. § 1654, allows two types of representation: “that by an attorney admitted to the practice of law by a governmental regulatory body, and that by a person representing himself.” Lattanzio v. COMTA, 481 F.3d 137, 139 (2d Cir. 2007) (quoting Eagle Assocs. v. Bank of Montreal, 926 F.2d 1305, 1308 (2d Cir. 1991)).

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

Chavez v. Finney, (S.D.N.Y. 2019).

Chavez v. Finney (Chavez v. Finney) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Coppedge v. United States
369 U.S. 438 (Supreme Court, 1962)
Becker v. Montgomery
532 U.S. 757 (Supreme Court, 2001)
Eagle Associates v. Bank of Montreal
926 F.2d 1305 (Second Circuit, 1991)
Pridgen v. Andresen
113 F.3d 391 (Second Circuit, 1997)
Lattanzio v. Comta
481 F.3d 137 (Second Circuit, 2007)
Harris v. Mills
572 F.3d 66 (Second Circuit, 2009)
Sealed v. Sealed 1
537 F.3d 185 (Second Circuit, 2008)