King v. United State of America Army

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedAugust 19, 2024
Docket1:24-cv-06124
StatusUnknown

This text of King v. United State of America Army (King v. United State of America Army) 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
King v. United State of America Army, (S.D.N.Y. 2024).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK CHARLIE WILLIAM KING, III, Plaintiff, 24-CV-6124 (LTS) -against- ORDER TO AMEND UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ARMY, Defendant. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiff, who is appearing pro se, brings this action asserting claims regarding his discharge from the United States Army. By order dated August 16, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis, that is, without prepayment of fees. For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint within 60 days of the date of this order. STANDARD OF REVIEW The Court must dismiss an in forma pauperis 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 The following are the only allegations in Plaintiff’s complaint. Plaintiff alleges: I do not have a record of service in the Army. Hospital said no record. Discharg need to be upgraded to be able to retire. (ECF 1 at 2.)1 Plaintiff further indicates: I ser. In the United State of Army in the America. Did have a [illegible]. My discharge want 90. I was told in order to upgrad my discharge I need to open a case in the Federal Court House. The I can changed my discharged and Retire. I’m from Baltimore City Maryland. My mothers Mary Alice King is Death so we is kids move to her home District of Columbia to live. (Id. at 5.) DISCUSSION Federal law authorizes “the Secretary of a military department [to] correct any military record when the Secretary considers it necessary to correct an error or remove an injustice,” 10 U.S.C. § 1552, and provides for the Secretary of Defense to review denials of such requests, 10 U.S.C. § 1553a. Other federal laws and regulations apply, for example, to review of discharge decisions, separation determinations based on medical conditions, and certain courts-marshal

1 The Court quotes from the complaint verbatim. All spelling, punctuation and grammar are as in the original unless noted otherwise. determinations. The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs offers resources for making an initial administrative request for a discharge upgrade or record correction.2 Federal district courts have jurisdiction, under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), to provide limited review of certain administrative decisions involving military

discharge or records. See, e.g., Falk v. Sec’y of the Army, 870 F.2d 941, 945 (2d Cir. 1989) (“In addition to the requirements of A.P.A. § 706, we must give the Records Board’s ruling increased deference because of the military context in which this appeal arises.”) Here, Plaintiff’s complaint does not provide sufficient information (about his military service and separation from service, or about any administrative requests that he has filed

or decisions that he has received) to enable the Court to determine the nature of his claim and whether it has jurisdiction of his claim. 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 complaint must include a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. Plaintiff’s complaint does not comply with Rule 8 because he does not include enough information to allow defendant to respond or the Court to determine whether he is entitled to relief.

LEAVE TO AMEND Plaintiff proceeds in this matter without the benefit of an attorney. District courts generally should grant a self-represented plaintiff an opportunity to amend a complaint to cure its

2 Request A Discharge Upgrade Or Correction | Veterans Affairs (va.gov) (accessed Aug. 16, 2024). defects, unless amendment would be futile. See Hill v. Curcione, 657 F.3d 116, 123-24 (2d Cir. 2011). Because Plaintiff may be able to allege additional facts showing that he is seeking judicial review of an administrative determination, the Court grants Plaintiff 60 days’ leave to amend his complaint to detail his claims.

In the “Statement of Claim” section of the amended complaint form, Plaintiff must provide a short and plain statement of the relevant facts supporting each claim against each defendant. If Plaintiff has an address for any named defendant, Plaintiff must provide it. Plaintiff should include: a) the names and titles of all relevant people; b) a description of all relevant events, including what each defendant did or failed to do, the approximate date and time of each event, and the general location where each event occurred; c) a description of the injuries Plaintiff suffered; and d) the relief Plaintiff seeks, such as money damages, injunctive relief, or declaratory relief. Essentially, Plaintiff’s amended complaint should tell the Court: who violated his federally protected rights; how, when, and where such violations occurred; and why Plaintiff is entitled to relief. If Plaintiff has received any decision of the Department of Defense Discharge Appeal Review Board (“DARB”), the Army Board for the Correction of Military Records (“ABCMR”), or any other relevant administrative determination, he may wish to include a copy of such decisions.

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)
David Falk v. Secretary of the Army
870 F.2d 941 (Second Circuit, 1989)
Hill v. Curcione
657 F.3d 116 (Second Circuit, 2011)
Harris v. Mills
572 F.3d 66 (Second Circuit, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
King v. United State of America Army, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/king-v-united-state-of-america-army-nysd-2024.