Madison v. Banks

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided July 8, 2019·No. 1:19-cv-05234·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK MALCOLM MADISON, Plaintiff, 19-CV-5234 (CM) -against- ORDERTO AMEND STEVEN A. BANKS, Commissioner of DHS; DEPARTMENT OF HOMELESS SERVICES, Defendants. COLLEEN McMAHON, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiff, appearing pro se, brings this action under the federal question statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, alleging that Defendants violated his rights at the Bellevue Men’s Shelter in Manhattan, and at the Bedford & Atlantic Men’s Shelter in Brooklyn. By order dated June 13, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed without prepayment of fees, that is,in forma pauperis.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 an in forma pauperis complaint, or portion thereof, that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on whichrelief 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.SeeFed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). While the law mandates dismissal on any of these grounds, the Court is obliged to construe pro sepleadings 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). BACKGROUND The following facts are taken from the complaint: From March 31, 2003, to May 30, 2019, the “New York State Parole”(NYSP) and the New York State Department of Corrections

and Community Supervision (DOCCS) targeted Plaintiffand “constantly provoked [him] into unnecessary violence.” (Compl. at 5.) And when he“defend[ed] [him]self on any level, [he was] . . . harassed by the Bronx District Attorney’s Office (Bronx DA) for incarceration or assassination by people working for Steven A. Banks, who will say or do anything and he will cosign.” (Id.)Plaintiff names as defendants Banks and the Department of Homeless Services (DHS).Heseeks $100,000,000in money damages. DISCUSSION A. The Court dismisses Plaintiff’s claims against Banks for failure to state a claim because the claims are not plausible 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. The Court concludes that the claims against Banks are not plausible. Plaintiffessentially accuses Banks, the Commissioner of DHS, of orchestrating a harassment campaign against Plaintiff,that involved the Bronx DA because Plaintiff defended himself against violent acts perpetrated at two different shelters over a 16-year period oftime.As the Court cannot draw any reasonable inference in Plaintiff’s favor based on these implausibleassertions, the Court

dismisses all claims against Banks for failure to state a claim showing that Plaintiff is entitled to relief. B. The Court dismisses Plaintiff’s claims against DHS for failure to state a claim Plaintiff’s claims against DHS must be dismissed because an agency of the City of New York is not an entity that can be sued. N.Y. City Charter ch. 17, § 396 (“[A]ll actions and proceedings for the recovery of penalties for the violation of any law shall be brought in the name of the city of New York and not in that of any agency, except where otherwise provided by law.”); Jenkins v. City of New York, 478 F.3d 76, 93 n.19 (2d Cir. 2007); see also Emerson v. City of New York, 740 F. Supp. 2d 385, 396 (S.D.N.Y. 2010)(“[A] plaintiff is generally prohibited from suing a municipal agency.”).

C. The Court grants Plaintiff leave to amend his complaint Plaintiff proceeds pro se, without the benefit of an attorney. Because it is not clear that granting him leave toamend would be futile, see Hill v. Curcione, 657 F.3d 116, 123–24 (2d Cir. 2011); Salahuddin v. Cuomo, 861 F.2d 40, 42 (2d Cir. 1988), the Court grants Plaintiff leave to amend the complaint to assert any facts suggesting that any individual employed by either DHS, NYSP, or DOCCS violated his rights. Should Plaintiff choose to amendhis complaint, he should state specific facts related toa specific event. For example, with respect to Plaintiff’s general allegations of harassment,he does not assert when or where he was harassed; name any individuals who harassed him; ordescribe the natureof the harassment. The Court therefore grants Plaintiff leave to amend his complaint to do so. LEAVE TO AMEND Plaintiff is granted leave to amend his complaint to detail his claims against individual defendants personally involved in violating his rights. First, Plaintiff must name as the defendant(s) in the caption1 and in the statement of claim those individuals who were allegedly

involved in the deprivation of his federal rights. If Plaintiff does not know the name of a defendant, he may refer to that individual as “John Doe” or “Jane Doe” in both the caption and the body of the amended complaint.2 The naming of John Doe defendants, however, does not toll the three-year statute of limitations period governing this action and Plaintiff shall be responsible for ascertaining the true identity of any “John Doe” defendants and amending his complaint to include the identity of any “John Doe” defendants before the statute of limitations period expires. Should Plaintiff seek to add a new claim or party after the statute of limitations period has expired, he must meet the requirements of Rule 15(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

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

Madison v. Banks, (S.D.N.Y. 2019).

Madison v. Banks (Madison v. Banks) — 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)
Salahuddin v. Cuomo
861 F.2d 40 (Second Circuit, 1988)
Hill v. Curcione
657 F.3d 116 (Second Circuit, 2011)
Jenkins v. City Of New York
478 F.3d 76 (Second Circuit, 2007)
Harris v. Mills
572 F.3d 66 (Second Circuit, 2009)
Emerson v. City of New York
740 F. Supp. 2d 385 (S.D. New York, 2010)