Harden v. Doe

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided June 24, 2019·No. 7:19-cv-03839·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK PAUL HARDEN, Plaintiff, 19-CV-3839 (CM) -against- ORDER TO AMEND JOHN DOE, et al., Defendants. COLLEEN McMAHON, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiff, currently incarcerated in Fishkill Correctional Facility, brings this pro se action alleging that Defendants violated his federal rights when he was incarcerated in Green Haven Correctional Facility (“Green Haven”). By order dated May 29, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed without prepayment of fees, that is, in forma pauperis.1 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 a complaint, or portion thereof, 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 636, 639 (2d Cir. 2007). 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,”

1 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). Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (emphasis in original). Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a complaint to make a short and plain statement showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. A complaint states a claim for relief if the claim is plausible. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v.

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). To review a complaint for plausibility, the Court accepts all well-pleaded factual allegations as true and draws all reasonable inferences in the pleader’s favor. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). But the Court need not accept “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action,” which are essentially legal conclusions. Id. at 678 (citing 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 events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred from July 18, 2016 through October 20, 2017, while he was incarcerated at Green Haven. (Compl. at 3.) Plaintiff’s complaint, which

is 55 pages long, is difficult to understand. He makes a number of spectacular allegations, including that two different correctional facilities, Green Haven and Clinton Correctional Facility, were using “an audio transmission speaker system” to broadcast derogatory statements about him throughout the facility and to produce pornographic tapes and videos to be sold on the internet. (See, e.g., id. at 13, 22-23.) His complaint also includes numerous pages of allegations relating to an alleged conspiracy involving drug-dealing correction officers and prison staff to assault and murder him. (See, e.g., id. at 28-30.) Plaintiff sues 59 defendants, including 9 John or Jane Does, as well as U.S. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand and former U.S. Congressman Charles Rangel. Plaintiff seeks money damages and injunctive relief including “improve[d] training and supervision” of correctional facility staff in handling inmates’ complaints under the Prison Rape Elimination Act. (Id. at 19.) DISCUSSION The Court’s “special solicitude” for pro se pleadings, Ruotolo v. IRS, 28 F.3d 6, 8 (2d Cir. 1994), has its limits, because pro se pleadings still must comply with Rule 8(a) of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure. Under Rule 8(a)(2), a complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Thus, a complaint’s statement of claim should not be prolix (lengthy) or contain unnecessary details. See Salahuddin v. Cuomo, 861 F.2d 40, 42 (2d Cir. 1988) (noting that under Rule 8(a)(2), the statement of claim “should be short because ‘[u]nnecessary prolixity in a pleading places an unjustified burden on the court and the party who must respond to it because they are forced to select the relevant material from a mass of verbiage’”) (citation omitted); Prezzi v. Schelter, 469 F.2d 691, 692 (2d Cir. 1972) (holding that complaint did not comply with Rule 8 because “it contained a labyrinthian prolixity of unrelated and vituperative charges that defied comprehension”); see also The Annuity, Welfare and Apprenticeship Skill Improvement & Safety

Funds of the Int’l Union of Operating Eng’rs Local 15, 15A, 15C & 15D, AFL-CIO v. Tightseal Constr. Inc., No. 17-CV-3670 (KPF), 2018 WL 3910827, at *12 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 14, 2018) (“[C]ourts in this Circuit have dismissed complaints that are unnecessarily long-winded, unclear, or conclusory.”) Plaintiff’s complaint does not comply with Rule 8 because it is lengthy, includes unnecessary and unimportant details, and lacks sufficient relevant details to state a claim. In addition, many of Plaintiff’s allegations appear to be implausible. In recognition of the “special solicitude” afforded pro se litigants, because Plaintiff alleges that a state actor assaulted him, the Court grants Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint that complies with the standards of Rule 8. Plaintiff’s statement of claim in his amended complaint must be short and plain – it must not be lengthy or include unimportant or unnecessary details. Plaintiff’s amended complaint must be limited to 20 pages, and he is encouraged to use the Court’s amended complaint form. LEAVE TO AMEND

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

Harden v. Doe, (S.D.N.Y. 2019).

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

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)
Wilma Prezzi v. Birg. Gen. L. J. Schelter
469 F.2d 691 (Second Circuit, 1972)
Harris v. Mills
572 F.3d 66 (Second Circuit, 2009)
Abbas v. Dixon
480 F.3d 636 (Second Circuit, 2007)
Salahuddin v. Cuomo
861 F.2d 40 (Second Circuit, 1988)