Kastner v. Tri State Eye

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided December 13, 2019·No. 7:19-cv-10668·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK JOSEPH KASTNER, et al., Plaintiffs, 19-CV-10668 (CM) -against- ORDERTO AMEND TRI STATE EYE, et al., Defendants. COLLEEN McMAHON, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiff brings this pro seaction, for which the filing fee has been paid, alleging that Defendants violated his rights.For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint within thirtydays of the date of this order. STANDARD OF REVIEW The Court has the authority to dismiss a complaint, even when the plaintiff has paid the filing fee, if it determines that the action is frivolous, Fitzgerald v. First E. Seventh Tenants Corp., 221 F.3d 362, 363-64 (2d Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (citing Pillay v. INS, 45 F.3d 14, 16-17 (2d Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (holding that Court of Appeals has inherent authority to dismiss frivolous appeal)),or that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 583 (1999).The Court is obliged, however,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, 474-75 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (emphasis in original). BACKGROUND Plaintiff brings this 154-page, single-spaced complaint, most of which contains bold text in all caps, against: (1) Tri State Eye; (2) Crystal Run Healthcare; (3) Coverys RFG, Inc; (4) Douglas Sansted; (5) Feldman, Kleidman, Coffey & Sappe; (6) Orange Regional Medical Center (OMRC); (7) New York State; (8)Town of Newburgh New York Police; (9) Town of Middletown New York Police Department; (10) “The US Attorney”; (11) “The FDA”; (12) “USA”; (13) “The EEOC”; (14) “The SSA-USA”; (15) “The US Inspector General”; (16) “The US Department of Justice”; (17) “TheUS Department of Health & Human Services

“HHS-HIPAA”Office of Civil Rights Enforcements”; (18) “The US Department of the Attorney General Office of Civil Rights Enforcements”; and (19) CIGNA. Plaintiff asserts that he is innocent of all [his] non violent past frivolous offenses and will prove it on examination: if asked: about how NYS, “SSA,”et al. and others railroaded me all my life to ruin my name, because; I complain and protect, But some of the doctors in this case: are guilty of my physical harm and are violent criminal offenders: who are on the loose and are: a front: for their employers,’not including other employers and/in their 49 other states: through; proven not needed: blinking laser shots to myself and some of the entire trusted public inthe USA. (ECF No. 1, at 4.)1 He brings: claims for: malpractices, negligence, sheer greed by their 5 referred doctor’s for, lying, cover-ups, threats, false truths (false medical histories,) lies, and assaults from each laser short that is {un-necessary that is a proven criminal assault} and conspiracy and the misuse/abuse of laser eye surgery equipment at ORMC with FDA violations, holding binding/blinding a patient against their/my will and wishes. Failure to inject and administer proper needed eye medicines/and future litigations. 30 day expired notice to cure violations and future laser changed procedures/laws are needed: attempted 2019 insurance fraud/extortion botched false NYS arrests for: Joseph rec Kastner and also for 2018. (Id.) In short, Plaintiff asserts that a doctor associated with ORMC “destroyed [his] left eye’s eye sight.”(Id.at 35.) 1The Court notes that in the quoted sections of the complaint, it does not omit Plaintiff’s unique use of punctuation. Plaintiff filed two prior cases in this Court where he sued multiple unrelated defendants. SeeKastner v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Co. Corp., ECF 1:15-CV-2757, 8 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 22, 2015); The Homeless Patrol, Kastner v. Joseph Volpe Family,ECF 1:09-CV-3628, 63 (S.D.N.Y. July 22, 2010). In the 15-CV-2757 action, Judge Loretta A. Preska noted that Plaintiff failed to comply with the pleading requirements under Rule 8 and Rule 20 of the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure because he (1) failed to make a short and plain statement showing he was entitled to relief, and (2) asserted unrelated claims against multiple defendants. Judge Preska granted Plaintiff leave to amend to cure this deficiency, but in his amended complaint, he failed to comply with Rule 8 and Rule 20, naming multiple defendants and asserting unrelated claims. Judge Preska dismissed the amended complaint for failure to state a claim. DISCUSSION The Court’s “special solicitude”for pro sepleadings, Ruotolo v. IRS, 28 F.3d 6, 8 (2d Cir. 1994), has its limits, because pro sepleadings 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.”) Under Rule 20 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, aplaintiff may not pursue unrelated claims against multiple defendants. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2) (“Persons . . . may be

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

Kastner v. Tri State Eye, (S.D.N.Y. 2019).

Kastner v. Tri State Eye (Kastner v. Tri State Eye) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Coppedge v. United States
369 U.S. 438 (Supreme Court, 1962)
Ruhrgas Ag v. Marathon Oil Co.
526 U.S. 574 (Supreme Court, 1999)
Wilma Prezzi v. Birg. Gen. L. J. Schelter
469 F.2d 691 (Second Circuit, 1972)
Salahuddin v. Cuomo
861 F.2d 40 (Second Circuit, 1988)
Harris v. Mills
572 F.3d 66 (Second Circuit, 2009)
DESKOVIC v. City of Peekskill
673 F. Supp. 2d 154 (S.D. New York, 2009)
Carmel v. CSH & C
32 F. Supp. 3d 434 (W.D. New York, 2014)
Peterson v. Regina
935 F. Supp. 2d 628 (S.D. New York, 2013)