UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK “MIGUEL DIAZ, Plaintiff, -against- 20-CV-0645 (CS) WILLIAM GRADY, Dutchess County ORDER TO AMEND District Attorney Office, Defendant. CATHY SEIBEL, United States District Judge: Plaintiff, currently incarcerated at Attica Correctional Facility, brings this pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Defendant, the District Attorney (“DA”) of Dutchess County, violated his rights. By order dated February 18, 2020, the Court granted Plaintiff's request to proceed without prepayment of fees, that is, in forma pauperis.' For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants Plaintiff sixty days from the date of this order to file an amended complaint.
. STANDARD OF REVIEW The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires that federal courts screen complaints brought by prisoners who seek relief against a governmental entity or an officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a prisoner’s in forma pauperis cornplaint, or any portion of the complaint, that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon 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), 1915A(b); see Abbas v, Dixon, 480 F.3d
| Prisoners are not exempt from paying the full filing fee even when they have been granted permission to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1).
636, 639 (2d Cir. 2007). The court must also dismiss a complaint if 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 US. 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. Jd. BACKGROUND The following facts are taken from the complaint: on an unspecified date, Defendant William Grady, the Dutchess County DA, “trfiJed to obtain [Plaintiffs] finger prints for a B/S E- felony,” but Plaintiff refused to provide his prints. (ECF No. 2 at 4.) Grady, who was unable to
obtain the prints from a “force order[,] .. . became upset and charged [Plaintiff] with obstruction of government justice.” (/d.) Grady then put in a force order . . . when they shipped [Plaintiff] to Dutchess County Court on 12/13/19.” dd.) On December 18, 2019, correctional staff did not produce Plaintiff to appear on the obstruction charge. And in January 2020, the DA’s Office “didn’t put the order of force in ‘apain,’ which shows the [malicious] intent in putting these charges in on me the first time they did it!” Ud} Plaintiff argues that the “fake obstruction charge was falsely drawn up in a[n] attempt to obtain [his] prints [and] put the B/S E-felony on [him] at the same time!” Plaintiff also states that in January 2020, the DA’s Office “stopped trying” to charge him “on two charges.” (/d.) He seeks money damages.
On February 26, 2020, Plaintiff filed an affidavit where he states that on J anuary □□□ 2020, at the Fishkill Town Court, his lawyer told him “that [he] was tru[]ly there for a[n] offer of
a ‘violation offer on a different matter’ and that the obstruction charge is being dismissed!”” (ECF No. 6.) Plaintiff also states in his affidavit that “any computer justice system” will confirm that the charges were dismissed. (/d.)
According to publicly available records from the New York State Department of Corrections (DOCCS), DOCCS received Plaintiff into its custody on July 6, 2018, after his Bronx County conviction for first-degree reckless endangerment and sentence of 34-7 years’ incarceration.
DISCUSSION A, Malicious Prosecution Because Plaintiff alleges that Grady charged him with obstruction of justice after Plaintiff refused to be fingerprinted, the Court construes these allegations as asserting a malicious prosecution claim. The tort of malicious prosecution “remedies detention accompanied, not by absence of legal process, but by wrongful institution of legal process.” Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S, 384, 389- 90 (2007). To state a claim for malicious prosecution, a plaintiff must allege facts showing: (1) that the defendant initiated or continued a prosecution against the plaintiff; (2) that the defendant lacked probable cause to commence the proceeding or believe the proceeding could succeed; (3) that the defendant acted with malice; and (4) that the prosecution was terminated in the plaintiff's favor. See Fulton v. Robinson, 289 F.3d 188, 195 (2d Cir. 2002). Because favorable termination is an element of a malicious prosecution claim, a plaintiff cannot state such a claim if his criminal proceeding is pending. See Wallace, 549 U.S. at 394. Federal law defines the elements of a § 1983 malicious prosecution claim, and a State’s tort law serves only as a source of persuasive authority. Lanning v. City of Glens Falls, 908 F.3d 19, 22 (2d Cir. 2018). Under federal law, “a plaintiff asserting a malicious prosecution claim under § 1983 must... show that the underlying criminal proceeding ended in a manner that affirmatively indicates his innocence.” /d. Thus, “where a dismissal in the interest of justice leaves the question of guilt or innocence unanswered, . . . it cannot provide the favorable termination required as the basis for [that] claim.” Thompson v. Clark, 364 F. Supp.
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 “MIGUEL DIAZ, Plaintiff, -against- 20-CV-0645 (CS) WILLIAM GRADY, Dutchess County ORDER TO AMEND District Attorney Office, Defendant. CATHY SEIBEL, United States District Judge: Plaintiff, currently incarcerated at Attica Correctional Facility, brings this pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Defendant, the District Attorney (“DA”) of Dutchess County, violated his rights. By order dated February 18, 2020, the Court granted Plaintiff's request to proceed without prepayment of fees, that is, in forma pauperis.' For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants Plaintiff sixty days from the date of this order to file an amended complaint.
. STANDARD OF REVIEW The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires that federal courts screen complaints brought by prisoners who seek relief against a governmental entity or an officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a prisoner’s in forma pauperis cornplaint, or any portion of the complaint, that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon 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), 1915A(b); see Abbas v, Dixon, 480 F.3d
| Prisoners are not exempt from paying the full filing fee even when they have been granted permission to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1).
636, 639 (2d Cir. 2007). The court must also dismiss a complaint if 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 US. 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. Jd. BACKGROUND The following facts are taken from the complaint: on an unspecified date, Defendant William Grady, the Dutchess County DA, “trfiJed to obtain [Plaintiffs] finger prints for a B/S E- felony,” but Plaintiff refused to provide his prints. (ECF No. 2 at 4.) Grady, who was unable to
obtain the prints from a “force order[,] .. . became upset and charged [Plaintiff] with obstruction of government justice.” (/d.) Grady then put in a force order . . . when they shipped [Plaintiff] to Dutchess County Court on 12/13/19.” dd.) On December 18, 2019, correctional staff did not produce Plaintiff to appear on the obstruction charge. And in January 2020, the DA’s Office “didn’t put the order of force in ‘apain,’ which shows the [malicious] intent in putting these charges in on me the first time they did it!” Ud} Plaintiff argues that the “fake obstruction charge was falsely drawn up in a[n] attempt to obtain [his] prints [and] put the B/S E-felony on [him] at the same time!” Plaintiff also states that in January 2020, the DA’s Office “stopped trying” to charge him “on two charges.” (/d.) He seeks money damages.
On February 26, 2020, Plaintiff filed an affidavit where he states that on J anuary □□□ 2020, at the Fishkill Town Court, his lawyer told him “that [he] was tru[]ly there for a[n] offer of
a ‘violation offer on a different matter’ and that the obstruction charge is being dismissed!”” (ECF No. 6.) Plaintiff also states in his affidavit that “any computer justice system” will confirm that the charges were dismissed. (/d.)
According to publicly available records from the New York State Department of Corrections (DOCCS), DOCCS received Plaintiff into its custody on July 6, 2018, after his Bronx County conviction for first-degree reckless endangerment and sentence of 34-7 years’ incarceration.
DISCUSSION A, Malicious Prosecution Because Plaintiff alleges that Grady charged him with obstruction of justice after Plaintiff refused to be fingerprinted, the Court construes these allegations as asserting a malicious prosecution claim. The tort of malicious prosecution “remedies detention accompanied, not by absence of legal process, but by wrongful institution of legal process.” Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S, 384, 389- 90 (2007). To state a claim for malicious prosecution, a plaintiff must allege facts showing: (1) that the defendant initiated or continued a prosecution against the plaintiff; (2) that the defendant lacked probable cause to commence the proceeding or believe the proceeding could succeed; (3) that the defendant acted with malice; and (4) that the prosecution was terminated in the plaintiff's favor. See Fulton v. Robinson, 289 F.3d 188, 195 (2d Cir. 2002). Because favorable termination is an element of a malicious prosecution claim, a plaintiff cannot state such a claim if his criminal proceeding is pending. See Wallace, 549 U.S. at 394. Federal law defines the elements of a § 1983 malicious prosecution claim, and a State’s tort law serves only as a source of persuasive authority. Lanning v. City of Glens Falls, 908 F.3d 19, 22 (2d Cir. 2018). Under federal law, “a plaintiff asserting a malicious prosecution claim under § 1983 must... show that the underlying criminal proceeding ended in a manner that affirmatively indicates his innocence.” /d. Thus, “where a dismissal in the interest of justice leaves the question of guilt or innocence unanswered, . . . it cannot provide the favorable termination required as the basis for [that] claim.” Thompson v. Clark, 364 F. Supp. 3d 178, 195 (E.D.N.Y. 2019). Plaintiff does not allege sufficient facts to state a § 1983 malicious prosecution claim because it does not appear that Grady, or anyone else, ever actually charged Plaintiff with
4 .
obstruction of justice or that a proceeding on those charges ever commenced. Put simply, it is not clear from the complaint or the affidavit what transpired between Plaintiff and Grady. Nor is it clear, if an obstruction charge was brought, on what grounds it was dismissed, and whether they were indicative of innocence. Nor is it clear that any such charge would have lacked probable cause. In light of Plaintiff's pro se status, the Court grants Plaintiff leave to amend the complaint to state, if he can, facts showing that Grady charged Plaintiff with obstruction of justice, that Plaintiff was prosecuted on that charge, that Grady lacked probable cause, and that the charge was dismissed on grounds indicative of innocence. B. Prosecutorial Immunity Plaintiff names Grady as the sole defendant, but it may be that Grady cannot be held liable. Prosecutors are immune from civil suits for damages for acts committed within the scope of their official duties where the challenged activities are not investigative in nature but, rather, are “intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process.” Simon v. City of New York, 727 F.3d 167, 171 (2d Cir, 2013) (quoting Jmbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430 (1976)); see also Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259 (1993) (holding that absolute immunity is analyzed under “functional approach” that “looks to the nature of the function performed, not the identity of the actor who performed it”), In addition, prosecutors are absolutely immune from suit for acts that may be administrative obligations but are “directly connected with the conduct of a trial.” Van de Kamp v. Goldstein, 555 U.S. 335, 344 (2009). Here, Plaintiff claims that Grady requested his fingerprints and then charged him — or threatened to charge him — with obstruction of justice when Plaintiff refused to provide them. Because Grady’s decision to charge Plaintiff is intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process, Grady may not be held liable for this conduct, See Kalina v. Fletcher, 522 □
USS. 118, 129 (1997) (noting that a prosecutor’s “activities in connection with the preparation and filing of .. . charging documents—the information and the motion for an arrest warrant-—are protected by absolute immunity”). Grady may be held liable, however, if he was acting in an investigative role or provided any factual statements in support of Plaintiffs arrest. See Van de Kamp v. Goldstein, 555 U.S. 335, 343 (2009) (prosecutor immune for preparation of initiation of judicial proceeding and actions in court, but not for advising police during investigation or acting as complaining witness). It appears that Plaintiff is complaining of conduct for which Grady would be absolutely immune, but it is unclear. Thus, the Court also grants Plaintiff leave to assert more facts regarding Grady’s personal involvement in the events surrounding the alleged obstruction of Justice charges — in other words, Plaintiff should specify exactly what Grady did. If individuals other than Grady participated in these alleged events, Plaintiff should also name these individuals in the caption of the complaint and state facts showing their personal involvement. LEAVE TO AMEND
Because Plaintiff may be able to allege additional facts to state a valid malicious prosecution claim, the Court grants Plaintiff 60 days’ leave to amend his complaint to detail his claim. First, Plaintiff must name as the defendant(s) in the caption? and in the statement of claim those individuals who were allegedly involved in the deprivation of his federal rights. [f Plaintiff
? The caption is located on the front page of the complaint. Each individual defendant must be named in the caption. Plaintiff may attach additional pages if there is not enough space to list all of the defendants in the caption. If Plaintiff needs to attach an additional page to list all defendants, he should write “see attached list” on the first page of the Amended Complaint. Any defendants named in the caption must also be discussed in Plaintiffs statement of claim.
does not know the name of a defendant, he may refer to that individual as “John Doe” or “Jane Doe” in both the caption and the body of the amended complaint.? The naming of John Doe defendants, however, does not toll the three-year statute of limitations period governing this action and Plaintiff shall be responsible for ascertaining the true identity of any “John Doe” defendants and amending his complaint to include the identity of any “John Doe” defendants before the statute of limitations period expires. Should Plaintiff seek to add a new claim or party after the statute of limitations period has expired, he must meet the requirements of Rule 15{(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, In the statement of claim, Plaintiff must provide a short and plain statement of the relevant facts supporting each claim against each defendant named in the amended complaint. Plaintiff is also directed to provide the addresses for any named defendants. To the greatest extent possible, Plaintiff’s amended complaint must: a) give the names and titles of all relevant persons; b) describe all relevant events, stating the facts that support Plaintiffs case including what each defendant did or failed to do; c) give the dates and times of each relevant event or, if not known, the approximate date and time of each relevant event; d) give the location where each relevant event occurred; e) describe how each defendant’s acts or omissions violated Plaintiff's rights and describe the injuries Plaintiff suffered; and f) state what relief Plaintiff seeks from the Court, such as money damages, injunctive relief, or declaratory relief. Essentially, the body of Plaintiff’s amended complaint must tell the Court: who violated his federally protected rights; what facts show that his federally protected rights were violated;
3 For example, a defendant may be identified as: “Correction Officer John Doe #1 on duty August 31, 2010, at Sullivan Correctional Facility, during the 7-3 p.m. shift.”
when such violation occurred; where such violation occurred; and why Plaintiff is entitled to relief. Because Plaintiffs amended complaint will completely replace, not supplement, the original complaint, any facts or claims that Plaintiff wishes to maintain must be included in the amended complaint. CONCLUSION The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff and note service on the docket. 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 20-CV-0645 (CS). An Amended Civil Rights Complaint form is attached to this order. No summons will issue at this time. If Plaintiff fails to comply within the time allowed, and he 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. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). SO ORDERED. Dated: 2 / | 0 White Pldins, New York het? United States District Judge
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
(in the space above enter the full name(s) of the plaintiff(s}.) AMENDED COMPLAINT ~against- under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Sry Tris Yes oO No (check one) ei)
(In the space above enter the full name(s) of the defendant(s). Ifyou cannot fit the names of all of the defendants in the space provided, please write “see attached” in the space above and attach an additional sheet of paper with the full list of names. The names listed in the above caption must be identical to those contained tn Part i, Addresses should nat be included here.) I, Parties in this complaint: A. List your name, identification number, and the name and address of your current place of confinement. Do the same for any additional plaintiffs named. Attach additional sheets of paper as necessary. Plaintiff's Name __ __ ee _ IDA Current Institution _ _ Address ee
B. List all defendants’ names, positions, places of employment, and the address where cach defendant may be served, Make sure that the defendant(s) listed below are identical] to those contained in the above caption. Attach additional sheets of paper as necessary.
Defendant No. 1 Name _ _ Shield # Where Currently Employed _ Address
Rev, 07/2010
Defendant No. 2 Name _ _ Shield # _ Where Currently Employed __ __ ee _ Address
Defendant No. 3 Name Shield # Where Currently Employed Address
in —— what? . | Defendant No. 4 Name _ Shield # _ Where Currently Employed _ __ _ Address
Defendant No. 5 Name _ _ _ Shield # Where Currently Employed _ _ Address
II. Statement of Claim: State as briefly as possible the facts of your case. Describe how each of the defendants named in the caption of this complaint is involved in this action, along with the dates and locations of ali relevant events. You may wish to include further details such as the names of other persons involved in the events giving rise to your claims, Do not cite any cases or statutes, If you intend to allege a number of related claims, number and set forth each claim in a separate paragraph. Attach additional sheets of paper as necessary.
A. In what institution did the events giving rise to your claim(s) occur?
B. Where in the institution did the events giving rise to your claim(s) occur?
Cc, What date and approximate time did the events giving rise to your claim(s) occur?
DB. Facts:
te you?
Rev. 01/2010
Was nn a i else jin ¥ olyed? I I
Who else h a? “pee I. Injuries: If you sustained injuries related to the events alleged above, describe them and state what medical treatment, if any, you required and received.
IV. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies; The Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA"), 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), requires that “[nJo action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under section 1983 of this title, or any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.” Administrative remedies are also known as grievance procedures. A. Did your claim(s) arise while you were confined in a jail, prison, or other correctional facility? Yes _
If YES, name the jail, prison, or other correctional facility where you were confined at the time of the events giving rise to your claim(s).
B. Does the jail, prison or other correctional facility where your claim(s) arose have a grievance procedure? Yes ——s—(“as«SNN Do Not Know Cc, Does the grievance procedure at the jail, prison or other correctional facility where your claim(s) arose cover some or all of your claim(s)? Yes No__—ss—sdD[Dao Not Know If YES, which claim(s}? D. Did you file a grievance in the jail, prison, or other correctional facility where your claim(s) arose? Yes = No If NO, did you file a grievance about the events described in this complaint at any other jail, prison, or other correctional facility? Yes No EB. If you did file a grievance, about the events described in this complaint, where did you file the grievance?
1. Which claim(s) in this complaint did you grieve?
2. What was the result, if any?
3. What steps, if any, did you take to appeal that decision? Describe all efforts to appeal to the highest level of the grievance process,
F. If you did not file a grievance: 1, If there are any reasons why you did not file a grievance, state them here:
Rev, 01/2010
2, If you did not file a grievance but informed any officials of your claim, state who you informed, when and how, and their response, if any:
G. Please set forth any additional information that is relevant to the exhaustion of your administrative remedies,
Note: You may attach as exhibits to this complaint any documents related to the exhaustion of your administrative remedies.
V. Relief: State what you want the Court to do for you (including the amount of monetary compensation, if any, that you are seeking and the basis for such amount). NNN me ee a
ee nn Rev. 01/2010
ee i □ VI. Previous lawsuits: :
A. Have you filed other lawsuits in state or federal court dealing with the same facts involved in this action?
Yes No B. If your answer to A is YES, describe each lawsuit by answering questions | through 7 below. (If there is more than one lawsuit, describe the additional lawsuits on another sheet of paper, using the same format.) 1. Parties to the previous lawsuit: Plaintiff ———— Defendants _—____. 2.Court Gif federal court, name the district; if state court, name the county) ___ □ nn 3, Docket or Index number 4. Name of Judge assigned to your case __ _ 5. Approximate date of filing lawsuit 6. Is the case still pending? Yes No If NO, give the approximate date of disposition _ _ _ 7. What was the result of the case? (For example: Was the case dismissed? Was there judgment in your favor? Was the case appealed?) _
On C. Have you filed other lawsuits in state or federal court otherwise relating to your imprisonment? other Yes No claims ee _ D. If your answer to C is YES, describe each lawsuit by answering questions | through 7 below. (If there is more than one lawsuit, describe the additional lawsuits on another piece of paper, using the same format.) l. Parties to the previous lawsuit: Plaintiff □□ Defendants
2. Court (if federal court, name the district; if state court, name the county) _ 3. Docket or Index number 4, Name of Judge assigned to your case __. □□ 5. Approximate date of filing lawsuit Rev. 01/2010
6. Is the case still pending? Yes Neo If NO, give the approximate date of disposition _ 7, What was the result of the case? (For example: Was the case dismissed? Was there judgement in your favor? Was the case appealed?) _ _
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct, Signed this day of , 20. Signature of Plaintiff _ Inmate Number _ _ Institution Address __. □
Note: All plaintiffs named in the caption of the complaint must date and sign the complaint and provide their inmate numbers and addresses.
I declare under penalty of perjury that on this day of , 20__, Lam delivering this complaint to prison authorities to be mailed to the Pro Se Office of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Signature of Plaintiff: . _ _ □□□