UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK wn eK BETTA MOMENTS, : Plaintiffs, : : 24-CV-5973 (JMF) -V- : : ORDER MAYOR ERIC ADAMS, et al., : Defendants. :
wn eK JESSE M. FURMAN, United States District Judge: On May 15, 2025, the Court received the attached documents filed by Plaintiff, who is proceeding without counsel. Plaintiff is reminded that any submissions to the Court should not be sent directly to chambers, but should instead be mailed to the Pro Se Intake Unit, at 500 Pearl Street, Room 205, New York, NY 10007. The Court will treat these documents as Plaintiff's opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 17. Defendants’ reply, if any, shall be filed by May 28, 2025. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail this Order to the Plaintiff. SO ORDERED. Dated: May 15, 2025 New York, New York JESS URMAN nited States District Judge
[ows ee □□ ON, eee a 5 Add é Du extns | oy Wiel —— —Asage ad ie ah tales > CEL, wll al {toot
Week. oft ee eee ee 14 - Cv - 659° 1, + ae (A) Aol covelag =~ fr O.. ty4y 11 2 ee ee SJ □□□□ dea Sfnatblandtlgiieas Sitlinindaomandtacae hi" =e Une hehe ok a 5 ae WA □□ (ola Pewter KIO ‘ps ch RS KEE Age = | he lade A NAVE AK lame A [ Crrevodkeca cle partaAeeths □□□□□□ A Cong NEEY | rocket We 2 ae = OOS, fy NEW a wr
\nowtox axe cot o\laninwe iWN Gate bo. eo me IS Owe “PHONE “Wacker! □ lee es a thie
— ANN on ane pr“. ani Senge Lc Lig i □□ MN ( KOA Om choles 5 5 (HOAX i sal
fe i Sg
ante ‘the: ah ca it. as i \ □□ the Sysheya us □□□□ ot TF etl Mitte CowVicw tee eens anl{T>s Le PO Ni Gk rQ □□ 0 COs lathe hand nies — SS OE aS arg ve hers : PS elee 7 | iQue es ICl\oSé & : At whe ( aise 9 prapee | Ons Xs ox +. —Nolkice Vive owt ow Ne_ Fen clay She re hee, O¥ ee =e Whe kia as OIE Lluliin( le and Whe cCoutty aagtes | to “cacve™ : cas +r □□ Casé = MO WK, a \ □□ O tia eC a Olah eli me at = Lx tO. To. petoc □□ a ee ee Se VigakK eta our eg 3 ee ee l\ Aw Oat WAS Avda Cp ee Ms —_ ae Kespeckt-altyts □□
eH
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT Plaintiff Betta Moments filed the Complaint in this case against Defendant Mayor Eric Adams and three John/Jane Doe Defendants — Supervisor Office of Contract Services, Supervisor Office of Management and Budget, and Supervisor City’s Law Department. The Complaint alleges that the Defendants violated her constitutional rights by establishing a commissary contract that failed to provide certain cosmetics such as foundation that matched her complexion and that the lack of such makeup in the commissary caused her mental depression. The Complaint fails to allege the personal involvement of any individual, fails to allege a discriminatory municipal policy or custom, fails to allege that she was denied a basic human need, fails to allege that any individual knew or should have known that any of Plaintiff's basic human needs were denied, or that such deprivation created a substantial risk of serious harm. As discussed more fully below, however, the Complaint suffers from pleading defects that cannot be corrected or amended because there is no constitutional violation for a failure to provide the cosmetics of Plaintiff's choosing at a jail commissary. As such, the Complaint should be dismissed in its entirety by the Court. Plaintiff has failed to state any viable claims upon which relief may be granted and the Court should put an end to this proceeding and deny Plaintiff leave to further amend. STATEMENT OF FACTS od Plaintiff filed the Initial Complaint on October 5, ee ECF No. 2. The Complaint alleges that the Defendants violated her constitutional ngnts by causing-her mental depressien-that arose from not having cosmetics that the Plaintiff feels are suitable to match her complexion. She further alleges that in the alternative to the proper cosmetics for her complexion, she and other similarly situated persons in custody must blend the foundation that is available with coffee presumably to darken the shade or shades that were available for purchase in the commissary
during the period February 2023 — July 2024. The Complaint fails to allege that she exhausted the administrative process underlying grievances of this nature and fails to allege that she spoke with anyone about this grievance and fails to allege that the use of the administrative grievance process was not required to investigate this sort of issue. Accordingly, this Complaint should be dismissed in its entirety. STANDARD OF REVIEW To survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must contain sufficient factual allegations “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombley, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted). The complaint must allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Jd. at 570. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Twombley, 550 U.S. at 556). “When the well-pleaded facts ‘do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct,’ the court must grant a motion to dismiss.” Yamashita v. Scholastic Inc., 936 F.3d 98, 104 (2d Cir. 2019) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679). The court, in deciding a motion to dismiss, must “accept as true the factual allegations of the complaint, and construe all reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Arar v. Ashcroft, 585 F.3d 559, 567 (2d Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). However, the court shall not give “effect to legal conclusions couched as factual allegations.” Port Dock & Stone Corp. v. Oldcastle Ne., Inc., 507 F.3d 117, 121 (2d Cir. 2007) (citing Twombley, 550 U.S. at 555). Nor must the court “accept as truth conflicting pleadings that make no sense, or that would render a claim incoherent, or that are contradicted either by statements in the complaint itself or by documents upon which its pleadings rely, or by facts of which the court may take judicial notice.” In re Livent, Inc. Noteholders Sec. Litig., 151 F. Supp.
Kaa Suiione: . «i a Bent □□ ~~ J i ALBANY NY 120 BA. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION ~~ □□ □ ADIRONDACK CORRECTIONAL FACILITY 5 THONG, 2025 AM4 L Pn i P.O. BOX 110 A mes 2.52 Sle terre RAY. mete NEW YORK 12977-0110 ; / y NAME: & | DIN: 2127 bogs . ie a. Fox. Fis, W 6 . Ho MM. UVDise □ 7 p : iy, / ~~ ESSE A. urvhoa
} ' ; Qype 500 ear | \leeed ena! KZ □□□ \ wk VY 100
LoooT-isiess ffeff pepe DADs g fata] eday) afMtd apagedp lyon | beg yf lyferafll
106 FON pete Pete he ud G; ee ee S00 Vear/ Sire sede ¢ te ra te PN Apiconlec LjActe we, a =a ( □□ oC mk a ee ae
Disc dentiaatyet, eelil |. had altcads Lh o lie id c □ KN) ©) Yes □ aie ANE Talos. : cists 5 __aS_Lce! Qp arncdrine pan ~ A\ ties □□ ar Hain be pos prot adhrdern the righ 6 AU. Abel 0 ee ee Kort 1k You. ie WE ( Coy EXO0NA ES / □ —— hankou Moat we ee eee | a ee Nia 90RD —. = a ee MES Dect Me □□□
(WT Tapes LSA] = — (CODAT, SS 0UTHEAN D7STAICL OFM wh Nh ee □□ f] ja iis = □□
et hier ee ee "tie ae
on ae Ve SE uewlAw, \ witeD dates | Beer —_pieclicapake all is tell uli Yu Hascor — As (dell ¢ he Qoutbs Shae. IT ak a fg OenSon ot law So lease Darden orca von ad CectrowS i = (ucts, the Asati whe.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK wn eK BETTA MOMENTS, : Plaintiffs, : : 24-CV-5973 (JMF) -V- : : ORDER MAYOR ERIC ADAMS, et al., : Defendants. :
wn eK JESSE M. FURMAN, United States District Judge: On May 15, 2025, the Court received the attached documents filed by Plaintiff, who is proceeding without counsel. Plaintiff is reminded that any submissions to the Court should not be sent directly to chambers, but should instead be mailed to the Pro Se Intake Unit, at 500 Pearl Street, Room 205, New York, NY 10007. The Court will treat these documents as Plaintiff's opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 17. Defendants’ reply, if any, shall be filed by May 28, 2025. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail this Order to the Plaintiff. SO ORDERED. Dated: May 15, 2025 New York, New York JESS URMAN nited States District Judge
[ows ee □□ ON, eee a 5 Add é Du extns | oy Wiel —— —Asage ad ie ah tales > CEL, wll al {toot
Week. oft ee eee ee 14 - Cv - 659° 1, + ae (A) Aol covelag =~ fr O.. ty4y 11 2 ee ee SJ □□□□ dea Sfnatblandtlgiieas Sitlinindaomandtacae hi" =e Une hehe ok a 5 ae WA □□ (ola Pewter KIO ‘ps ch RS KEE Age = | he lade A NAVE AK lame A [ Crrevodkeca cle partaAeeths □□□□□□ A Cong NEEY | rocket We 2 ae = OOS, fy NEW a wr
\nowtox axe cot o\laninwe iWN Gate bo. eo me IS Owe “PHONE “Wacker! □ lee es a thie
— ANN on ane pr“. ani Senge Lc Lig i □□ MN ( KOA Om choles 5 5 (HOAX i sal
fe i Sg
ante ‘the: ah ca it. as i \ □□ the Sysheya us □□□□ ot TF etl Mitte CowVicw tee eens anl{T>s Le PO Ni Gk rQ □□ 0 COs lathe hand nies — SS OE aS arg ve hers : PS elee 7 | iQue es ICl\oSé & : At whe ( aise 9 prapee | Ons Xs ox +. —Nolkice Vive owt ow Ne_ Fen clay She re hee, O¥ ee =e Whe kia as OIE Lluliin( le and Whe cCoutty aagtes | to “cacve™ : cas +r □□ Casé = MO WK, a \ □□ O tia eC a Olah eli me at = Lx tO. To. petoc □□ a ee ee Se VigakK eta our eg 3 ee ee l\ Aw Oat WAS Avda Cp ee Ms —_ ae Kespeckt-altyts □□
eH
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT Plaintiff Betta Moments filed the Complaint in this case against Defendant Mayor Eric Adams and three John/Jane Doe Defendants — Supervisor Office of Contract Services, Supervisor Office of Management and Budget, and Supervisor City’s Law Department. The Complaint alleges that the Defendants violated her constitutional rights by establishing a commissary contract that failed to provide certain cosmetics such as foundation that matched her complexion and that the lack of such makeup in the commissary caused her mental depression. The Complaint fails to allege the personal involvement of any individual, fails to allege a discriminatory municipal policy or custom, fails to allege that she was denied a basic human need, fails to allege that any individual knew or should have known that any of Plaintiff's basic human needs were denied, or that such deprivation created a substantial risk of serious harm. As discussed more fully below, however, the Complaint suffers from pleading defects that cannot be corrected or amended because there is no constitutional violation for a failure to provide the cosmetics of Plaintiff's choosing at a jail commissary. As such, the Complaint should be dismissed in its entirety by the Court. Plaintiff has failed to state any viable claims upon which relief may be granted and the Court should put an end to this proceeding and deny Plaintiff leave to further amend. STATEMENT OF FACTS od Plaintiff filed the Initial Complaint on October 5, ee ECF No. 2. The Complaint alleges that the Defendants violated her constitutional ngnts by causing-her mental depressien-that arose from not having cosmetics that the Plaintiff feels are suitable to match her complexion. She further alleges that in the alternative to the proper cosmetics for her complexion, she and other similarly situated persons in custody must blend the foundation that is available with coffee presumably to darken the shade or shades that were available for purchase in the commissary
during the period February 2023 — July 2024. The Complaint fails to allege that she exhausted the administrative process underlying grievances of this nature and fails to allege that she spoke with anyone about this grievance and fails to allege that the use of the administrative grievance process was not required to investigate this sort of issue. Accordingly, this Complaint should be dismissed in its entirety. STANDARD OF REVIEW To survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must contain sufficient factual allegations “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombley, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted). The complaint must allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Jd. at 570. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Twombley, 550 U.S. at 556). “When the well-pleaded facts ‘do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct,’ the court must grant a motion to dismiss.” Yamashita v. Scholastic Inc., 936 F.3d 98, 104 (2d Cir. 2019) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679). The court, in deciding a motion to dismiss, must “accept as true the factual allegations of the complaint, and construe all reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Arar v. Ashcroft, 585 F.3d 559, 567 (2d Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). However, the court shall not give “effect to legal conclusions couched as factual allegations.” Port Dock & Stone Corp. v. Oldcastle Ne., Inc., 507 F.3d 117, 121 (2d Cir. 2007) (citing Twombley, 550 U.S. at 555). Nor must the court “accept as truth conflicting pleadings that make no sense, or that would render a claim incoherent, or that are contradicted either by statements in the complaint itself or by documents upon which its pleadings rely, or by facts of which the court may take judicial notice.” In re Livent, Inc. Noteholders Sec. Litig., 151 F. Supp.
Kaa Suiione: . «i a Bent □□ ~~ J i ALBANY NY 120 BA. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION ~~ □□ □ ADIRONDACK CORRECTIONAL FACILITY 5 THONG, 2025 AM4 L Pn i P.O. BOX 110 A mes 2.52 Sle terre RAY. mete NEW YORK 12977-0110 ; / y NAME: & | DIN: 2127 bogs . ie a. Fox. Fis, W 6 . Ho MM. UVDise □ 7 p : iy, / ~~ ESSE A. urvhoa
} ' ; Qype 500 ear | \leeed ena! KZ □□□ \ wk VY 100
LoooT-isiess ffeff pepe DADs g fata] eday) afMtd apagedp lyon | beg yf lyferafll
106 FON pete Pete he ud G; ee ee S00 Vear/ Sire sede ¢ te ra te PN Apiconlec LjActe we, a =a ( □□ oC mk a ee ae
Disc dentiaatyet, eelil |. had altcads Lh o lie id c □ KN) ©) Yes □ aie ANE Talos. : cists 5 __aS_Lce! Qp arncdrine pan ~ A\ ties □□ ar Hain be pos prot adhrdern the righ 6 AU. Abel 0 ee ee Kort 1k You. ie WE ( Coy EXO0NA ES / □ —— hankou Moat we ee eee | a ee Nia 90RD —. = a ee MES Dect Me □□□
(WT Tapes LSA] = — (CODAT, SS 0UTHEAN D7STAICL OFM wh Nh ee □□ f] ja iis = □□
et hier ee ee "tie ae
on ae Ve SE uewlAw, \ witeD dates | Beer —_pieclicapake all is tell uli Yu Hascor — As (dell ¢ he Qoutbs Shae. IT ak a fg OenSon ot law So lease Darden orca von ad CectrowS i = (ucts, the Asati whe. Bet ante! as ps =a dha! Hass bene a Rare! case ltNh ine covvecttowal inShtutows de ne i naman fo wu sapiient ENTS Ith Case lAK . —— € xewlaw clear. ; =
4—___—_
pes okies — ow rhake-w_is_sot a _loasic_loihast et : bs O OOea W/O : Py OX □ ie acetic Sh Uae, Agora □ tSSue \ ocy ace & change, □ pla as tae oad oat lakes you loot □□□ limet> BYP PEPPER □□□ > awing a shore huang NiSua| EVs OL 0 Qk ag □□ Ao dak sa Qu 1k®) = □□ oO — oe where] stack gee Ldn: □□ Neate » Llarkdarnd. NiaKe-ul = pee Se ee Tad mas rar OW OX TESS nrAcaws o\or rola atc Adank to a oa Mide nia Uloer® an Snt Co GQ Sik lage ONL : ey in ese, ea whore Morven, Co Olevion’ he Wovenlencrowelz eve wdaw OlLONnda MW. WMS ColhbeéeN Mot PSAs es ne eiied z ASO LORS (O_oX. Une a □□ Layne s Stakp cal tb or a Pee AKC | Ua Sipe Liss □ Lily Slate 0 \4| Ackevdche ct □□ lation’ fa Ox yp alowe then gnc ae ONE “| ase os t Jan land noel Shade RM ag riell cleay Ee Ap □□ eaah Sicko . 7
= eee Oe Boual Orakei caw also la ae A ee as ON: a lak’ □□ Bysical al pte oe x Whe eine —
=. Oise and icator\ = ee Cole SD DeSsowlS TOW CONG OWE 7 0 oY ithal F OCdw lo ON NLL Le □ He Ska po r Vealinwag Une ire
aay pNE US OV 1$CO □□ OTN NK CO a Gat NS Yewdant oevhaes way i er al. | “HK eC OL □□ 1G = ie a Ba □□□ Tee nic □□□□ it bel Save ce Anat, iF Slows L~J O € Q {A We > wictlenitn, ae = Depicat Enboyon ate Sine Was sr Gallet perry rhea outer pee laOueelee —__bleart net blenishes? cies Sa eee nett Conn pl excte ee
ee A Nao es) a heel ty sy) : SO i (A. bur” } > ee ee et □□□ O Gact Vhat 4 out Howoy ) LkOS Mes G10 0 Bitad al Od □□□□ gt taut present the Bae O ee eee GrOQUEWEAY ee seca tener □□□ □□□□□ Ch aes aes □□ th tk ; ert. Ce pai IN FER ares it ae WIN □□□ IY 0 Cs WE eel to sweture Sov waddy: Arie ee Slice ST Tq , a pe sin lis ia cea ee sa eg □□ □□ □□□□ ee ke Su >
= ian ls ee sa gee ! Ss es)
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION ADIRONDACK CORRECTIONAL FACILITY P.O. BOX 110 2 RAY BROOK, NEW YORK 12977-0110 7 Ly me i 2 Tp e [2 he ie ; NAME: € dé DIN: 211D"/ PEQE □□□ 2H OFC de > n-4 Tt :
o~)« ‘Ss |, Ou □ | | S00 □□□ Stef EGA At!
LOUI7S1 Bil Coss ebay gHPEL pepe Dg Bight fova □□□ ghyfisada