Hennings v. Adams

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedAugust 28, 2023
Docket1:23-cv-01935
StatusUnknown

This text of Hennings v. Adams (Hennings v. Adams) 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
Hennings v. Adams, (S.D.N.Y. 2023).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK VELYN A. HENNINGS, Plaintiff, -against- 23-CV-1935 (LTS) ERIC ADAMS, MAYOR; COMMANDER ORDER OF DISMISSAL MACKIE DI; PERSONNEL DIRECTOR FOR PARKS DEPT., Defendants. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, brings this action invoking the Court’s federal question jurisdiction and asserting that Mayor Eric Adams and two other officials of the City of New York violated her rights. By order dated March 7, 2023, 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 dismisses the complaint but grants Plaintiff 60 days’ leave to replead her claims in an amended complaint. 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. BACKGROUND Plaintiff brings this action using the court’s general complaint form. She names as defendants Mayor Adams; Commander Mackie,1 identified as the commanding officer of the New York City Police Department Transit Bureau District 33; and the Personnel Director for the New York City Parks Opportunity Program. Plaintiff asserts that her rights were violated at Penn Station, Grand Central Station, and an office building in Manhattan in an ongoing “illegal hearing.” (ECF 2, at 5.) In the fact section of the complaint, she states: At all three sites my rights have been violated. District Office 33, for transportation, illegally going in the system and pulling out information and post information on these illegal hearing. The transportation officers posted a started illegal hearings and they won’t shut these hearings down. (Id.)2

1 Plaintiff indicates that the Commander’s name is “Mackie Di” in the caption of the complaint, but refers to him simply as “Commander Mackie” in other parts of the complaint. 2 Plaintiff writes using irregular capitalization. For readability, the Court uses standard capitalization when quoting from the complaint. All other grammar, spelling, and punctuation are as in the original unless otherwise indicated. Plaintiff attaches a statement to the complaint in which she refers to receiving treatment for her legs and upper torso at Split Rock Nursing Center and Rehabilitation and Bellevue Hospital. She also asserts: The MTA Police are hired by a state agency. They got hold of my personal data, and ran the information through a computer and called the Parks Dept Personnel and the person worked that told them I was dead. (Id. at 11.) In the relief section of the complaint, Plaintiff states, “[t]he Biden Administration agreed to pay 753 million dollars.” (Id. at 6.) DISCUSSION A. Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 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. Furthermore, 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). “A complaint fails to comply with Rule 8(a)(2) if it is ‘so confused, ambiguous, vague, or otherwise unintelligible that its true substance, if any, is well disguised.”’ Strunk v. U.S. House of Representatives, 68 Fed. App’x 233, 235 (2d Cir. 2003) (summary order) (quoting Salahuddin v. Cuomo, 861 F.2d 40, 42 (2d Cir. 1988))); see 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”). Rule 8 “does not demand that a complaint be a model of clarity or exhaustively present the facts alleged,” but it

does require, “at a minimum, that a complaint give each defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is and the ground upon which it rests.” Atuahene v. City of Hartford, 10 F. App’x 33, 34 (2d Cir. 2001) (citation and quotation marks omitted). “It is not the Court’s job – nor the opposing party’s – to decipher a complaint that is ‘so poorly composed as to be functionally illegible.’” Ghosh v. N.Y.C. Hous. Auth., No. 21-CV-6139, 2023 WL 3612553, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 27, 2023) (quoting Avramham v. N.Y., No. 20-CV-4441, 2020 WL 4001628, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. July 15, 2020)). A complaint that fails to comply with Rule 8 may be dismissed. See Da Costa v. Marcucilli, 675 Fed. App’x 15, 17 (2d Cir. 2017) (summary order) (dismissing a complaint because it was convoluted, repetitive and difficult to understand); Anduze v. City of New York, No. 21-CV-519, 2021 WL 795472, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 26, 2021) (dismissing a

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)
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)
Harris v. Mills
572 F.3d 66 (Second Circuit, 2009)
Cuoco v. Moritsugu
222 F.3d 99 (Second Circuit, 2000)
Atuahene v. City of Hartford
10 F. App'x 33 (Second Circuit, 2001)
Salahuddin v. Cuomo
861 F.2d 40 (Second Circuit, 1988)
Barsella v. United States
135 F.R.D. 64 (S.D. New York, 1991)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Hennings v. Adams, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hennings-v-adams-nysd-2023.