Parkes v. Walker II

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided August 14, 2025·No. 1:25-cv-03783·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK TIFFANY ANNE PARKES, Plaintiff, 25-CV-3783 (KMW) -against- ORDER OF DISMISSAL LESTER C. WALKER II, GHETTO GASTRO, WITH LEAVE TO REPLEAD INC., GHETTO GASTRO GLOBAL, LLC, Defendants. KIMBA M. WOOD, United States District Judge: Plaintiff, appearing pro se, brings this action asserting claims under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, federal criminal statutes (18 U.S.C §§ 242, 250, 1591, and 2242), and state law (invasion of privacy, sexual harassment, defamation, and the wrongful death of her mother). Plaintiff sues Lester C. Walker II (“Walker”) and two companies with which he is involved, Ghetto Gastro, Inc. and Ghetto Gastro Global, LLC. By Order dated August 6, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), that is, without prepayment of fees. (ECF No. 4.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court dismisses the action, but grants Plaintiff 30 days’ leave to replead.

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 over the claims raised. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). Although 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 to interpret them to raise the “strongest [claims] that they suggest,” Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474 (2d Cir. 2006) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks and citations

omitted) (emphasis in original). But the “special solicitude” courts provide to pro se litigants, 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. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Rule 8 requires a complaint to include enough facts to state a claim “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. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). In reviewing the complaint, the Court must accept all well-pleaded factual allegations as true, but it need not accept as true “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action,” which are

essentially just legal conclusions. Id. at 678-79. 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 The following facts are drawn from the complaint.1 (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff Tiffany Anne Parkes met Walker and “other co-founders” in November 2017 while working as a sous chef.2 (Id. at 2.) On August 30, 2019, Plaintiff and Walker engaged in sexual relations, which Plaintiff assumed to be private. (Id. at 1.) It was later revealed that these intimate moments had been

recorded, and the recording was broadcast without her consent, leading to harassment and other negative consequences for Plaintiff. (Id. at 2.) Since this incident, Plaintiff has experienced harassment, “blackballing” in the restaurant industry, and personal and familial hostility, contributing to her homelessness and emotional distress. (Id.) Plaintiff mentions the mysterious death of her mother, implying that there has been foul play involving local police, federal authorities, and the medical examiner’s office.3 (Id.) Plaintiff seeks compensation of $1,000,000,000.00 for punitive damages, pain and suffering, defamation, personal injury, and medical expenses. (Id. at 3.)

DISCUSSION A. Constitutional Claims Plaintiff invokes 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as a basis for her claims against Walker and two companies with which he is involved (Ghetto Gastro, Inc. and Ghetto Gastro Global, LLC

1 The Court quotes from the complaint verbatim. All spelling, grammar, and punctuation appear as in the complaint, unless noted otherwise. 2 The reference to co-founders presumably refers to Ghetto Gastro, Inc. and Ghetto Gastro Global, LLC, though the complaint is unclear. 3 These allegations about the death of Plaintiff’s mother are the subject of a separate suit, Parkes v. Broward County Office of Medical Examiner & Trauma, 25-CV-2307 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 4, 2025) (Swain, C.J.), which was transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. For that reason, this Court does not consider any claims concerning the death of Plaintiff’s mother. (collectively “Ghetto Gastro”)). To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege both that: (1) a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) the right was violated by a person acting under the color of state law, or a “state actor.” West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48-49 (1988).

A Section 1983 claim must allege facts showing that each defendant acted under the color of a state “statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage.” 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Private parties are therefore generally not liable under Section 1983. Sykes v. Bank of Am., 723 F.3d 399, 406 (2d Cir. 2013) (per curiam) (citing Brentwood Acad. v. Tenn. Secondary Sch. Athletic Ass’n, 531 U.S. 288, 295 (2001)); see also Ciambriello v. Cnty. of Nassau, 292 F.3d 307, 323 (2d Cir.

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

Parkes v. Walker II, (S.D.N.Y. 2025).

Parkes v. Walker II (Parkes v. Walker II) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Coppedge v. United States
369 U.S. 438 (Supreme Court, 1962)
Leeke v. Timmerman
454 U.S. 83 (Supreme Court, 1982)
Carnegie-Mellon University v. Cohill
484 U.S. 343 (Supreme Court, 1988)
West v. Atkins
487 U.S. 42 (Supreme Court, 1988)
Landgraf v. USI Film Products
511 U.S. 244 (Supreme Court, 1994)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (Supreme Court, 2007)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court, 2009)
Hill v. Curcione
657 F.3d 116 (Second Circuit, 2011)
Abbas v. Dixon
480 F.3d 636 (Second Circuit, 2007)