Joachin v. Care Stat Staffing

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedJune 10, 2024
Docket1:23-cv-10803
StatusUnknown

This text of Joachin v. Care Stat Staffing (Joachin v. Care Stat Staffing) 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
Joachin v. Care Stat Staffing, (S.D.N.Y. 2024).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK NADINE JOACHIN, Plaintiff, -against- 23-CV-10803 (LTS) CARE STAT STAFFING; ROCK ORDER TO AMEND REHABILITATION NURSING HOME; DAVID AMAR; CARMEN; ERICA, Defendants. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, brings this action alleging that Defendants discriminated against her when they denied her application for employment.1 (ECF No. 5 at 2.) By order dated December 22, 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 grants Plaintiff leave to file a second 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).

1 Plaintiff filed this action on December 12, 2023, and without direction from the Court, on February 13, 2024, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. 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 Plaintiff Nadine Joachin initially brought this complaint for employment discrimination using the court’s employment discrimination complaint form. Named as Defendants are Care Stat Staffing; Rock Rehabilitation Nursing Home; David Amer, and employee of Care Stat Staffing; and Carmen and Erica, employees of Rock Rehabilitation Nursing Home. On the form complaint, Plaintiff checked the boxes indicating that she was bringing this action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17; the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (“Rehab Act”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 701-796; the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12112-12117; the New York State Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. Law §§ 290 to 297; and the New York City Human Rights Laws, N.Y.C. Admin. Code §§ 8-101 to 131. Plaintiff did not identify her race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. She indicated that

her disability or perceived disability is “criminal background history,” and she identified her disability or perceived disability as “Mal-Practice Diagnosis.”2 (ECF No. 1 at 3-4.) In her initial complaint, Plaintiff alleged that Defendants “hired me after paperwork were submitted then afterward denied my employment EEOC #520-2024-01540.” (Id. at 5.) She further alleged I was contacted by David Amar for a CNA position which organization seemed to be promoting Sherman Antitrust Act violation & the violation of Rehabilitation Act of 1973. They hired me after I submitted paperwork then turned around later in the day violated my rights and denied me employment while lying. (Id.) Plaintiff alleged that she received a Notice of Right to Sue from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), but she did not attach a copy of the Notice to her complaint, as the form directs. (Id. at 6.) Plaintiff amended her complaint using the court’s general complaint form and invoking both federal question and diversity of citizenship jurisdiction. In the section that asks Plaintiff which of her federal constitutional or federal statutory rights have been violated, Plaintiff wrote A Mal Practice Diagnosis took place at medical facilities where as employees where Mal practicing with falsifying documents and committing fraud and I am being discriminated against that diagnosis. Also, this agency violated might rights such as Americans with Disabilities Act, New York State Human Rights Law, New York City Human Rights law, Rehabilitation Act, and Equal Opportunity Labor Act.

2 The Court quotes from the original and amended complaints verbatim. All spelling, grammar, and punctuation are as in the original, unless noted otherwise. (ECF No. 5 at 2.) Plaintiff alleges I was contacted by David Amar for a CNA position which the organization seems to be promoting Sherman Antitrust Act of 1973. They hired me after I submitted paperworks and credentials then they turned around and no longer wanted to proceed on with the hiring process. They gave me the impression the were hiding someone else under my information and credential with possible bank fraud and forgery taking place. They are practicing unethical code of conduct that doesn’t relates to labor laws and civil rights. (Id. at 5.) In the Injuries section of the form complaint, Plaintiff writes “I was being stalked by unknown individuals threatening and harassed. They also called the N-words as if this isn’t discriminatory behavior.” (Id.) She seeks “monetary compensation of $100,000,000 for the Sherman Antitrust Act violation followed all acts and laws violated.” (Id.) DISCUSSION 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)
Salahuddin v. Cuomo
861 F.2d 40 (Second Circuit, 1988)
Hill v. Curcione
657 F.3d 116 (Second Circuit, 2011)
Patane v. Clark
508 F.3d 106 (Second Circuit, 2007)
Harris v. Mills
572 F.3d 66 (Second Circuit, 2009)
Mandala v. NTT Data, Inc.
975 F.3d 202 (Second Circuit, 2020)
Cuoco v. Moritsugu
222 F.3d 99 (Second Circuit, 2000)
Vega v. Hempstead Union Free School District
801 F.3d 72 (Second Circuit, 2015)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Joachin v. Care Stat Staffing, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/joachin-v-care-stat-staffing-nysd-2024.