Pereira v. New York City Department of Education

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedJanuary 16, 2024
Docket1:23-cv-10396
StatusUnknown

This text of Pereira v. New York City Department of Education (Pereira v. New York City Department of Education) 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
Pereira v. New York City Department of Education, (S.D.N.Y. 2024).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ARAO ABEL PEREIRA, Plaintiff, 23-CV-10396 (LTS) -against- NYC DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, ET ORDER TO AMEND AL., Defendants. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiff, who is appearing pro se, invokes the Court’s federal question jurisdiction, alleging that Defendants violated his rights. By order dated December 11, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), that is, without prepayment of fees. For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants Plaintiff 60 days’ leave to file an amended complaint. 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 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

Plaintiff’s submission consists of a 26-page complaint, along with approximately 1,620 pages of attachments and exhibits. Named as Defendants are (1) the New York City Department of Education; (2) the New York City Department of Homeless Services (“DHS”); (3) New York City Health + Hospitals Corporation (“H+H”); (4) the United States Justice Department; (5) the New York City Police Department (“NYPD”); (6) the “New York City Attorney General”; (7) the New York City Administration for Children Services (“ACS”); (8) the New York City Housing Authority; (9) the New York City Human Resources Administration (“HRA”); and (10) the United States Postal Services Administration (“USPS”). Plaintiff alleges that the events giving rise to his claims occurred between September 2005 and November 2023, at “shelters, schools, hospitals, public services bld. [and] courts.” (ECF 1, at 7.)1

The following allegations are taken from the complaint. Plaintiff alleges, “My daughters have been then multiple times sexually abused by schools’s and day care teachers. No justice done. Which left my daughters deeply traumatized psychologically. Left me suffering from depression, [a]nxiety, post traumatic syndrome d[i]sorder.” (Id.) Plaintiff has not received a standards of health and medical care which resulted in a breach to more serious medical negligence and I aggrieved as patient permanently getting

1 Plaintiff writes using irregular capitalization. For readability, the Court uses standard capitalization when quoting from the complaint. All other spelling, grammar, and punctuation are as in the original unless otherwise indicated. not all proffissional medical care in treatment of my health condition staff, medical personnels clearly demonstration actions of medical malpractice which it cause me injury, pain, psychological, moral, spiritual, and physical serious traumatic situation with chronical long life damages as I became suffering, diabetis, hypertension, glaucoma, cancer, [illegible], bluri vision, audio pathology, erectil impotent, intra-hospitalar fatal deadly bacteria infected. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that, “[a]s a result of bad public services,” he and his family have experienced “dwelling inappropri[ate] welfare” and he has developed multiple chronic medical conditions. (Id. at 8.) Plaintiff’s daughter was assaulted by an individual named “Ms. Denise,” who appears to have been employed at the Williamsbridge Family Inn (“the Inn”), a shelter operated by DHS. (See id. at 15.) When Plaintiff and his two daughters moved to New York City, they were assigned a unit in the Inn. The Inn operated a Community Residential Resource Center, which provides services such as early childhood education and after-school programming for families residing in homeless shelters. (Id. at 19.) In 2007, Plaintiff’s daughter was five years old and participated in early childhood education and childcare programs at the Inn. One day, Ms. Denise “isolated” Plaintiff’s daughter and assaulted her by “[p]enetrat[ing] [Plaintiff’s] daughter’s [v]agine with an [o]bject.” (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that such abuse “occurred several times” and that he reported it to the police. (Id.) After the incident, Plaintiff and his daughters left the Inn and “never [r]eturned.” (Id.) As a result of the incidents of abuse, Plaintiff’s daughter suffered physical and emotional distress and she has incurred expenses for medical and psychological treatment, including therapy and counseling, and she has lost income and income earning capacity. With respect to these allegations, Plaintiff enumerates causes of action for negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress. In addition to the allegations described above, Plaintiff includes documents that appear to be asserting additional claims. In one such set of documents, Plaintiff describes in detail medical care he received from various New York City-area hospitals, and he attempts to assert claims of “malpractice, negligence and medical misconduct of all previous health care providers that have been inside of [his] life.” (Id. at 37; see id. at 36-39). Plaintiff also attempts to assert claims

against the “US Justice System in the NYC,” alleging that he won judgments in various state court actions, but that the defendants never made any payments to him and that the “New York City Justice System” did not help. (Id. at 40-41.) He also describes problems he has had with Yared Auto Body Service, ACS, the “New York City Attorney General,” “New York City Housing Department,” “Omar Diallo, Business,” HRA , the USPS, and “[a]ggression on the [s]treet by 3 individuals.” (Id. at 47.) Plaintiff also attaches to the complaint voluminous medical records, school assessments of his children, and documents from state court actions.2 DISCUSSION A. Claims on Behalf of Plaintiff’s Daughter Plaintiff appears pimarily to be attempting to assert claims that his daughter was sexually

abused when she was a minor. As a nonlawyer, however, Plaintiff can only represent his own interests; he may not assert claims on behalf of his daughter. See 28 U.S.C. § 1654; U.S. ex rel. Mergent Servs. v. Flaherty, 540 F.3d 89, 92 (2d Cir.

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)
Wisconsin Department of Corrections v. Schacht
524 U.S. 381 (Supreme Court, 1998)
Empire Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. v. McVeigh
547 U.S. 677 (Supreme Court, 2006)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (Supreme Court, 2007)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court, 2009)
Wilma Prezzi v. Birg. Gen. L. J. Schelter
469 F.2d 691 (Second Circuit, 1972)
Eagle Associates v. Bank of Montreal
926 F.2d 1305 (Second Circuit, 1991)
Hill v. Curcione
657 F.3d 116 (Second Circuit, 2011)
United States Ex Rel. Mergent Services v. Flaherty
540 F.3d 89 (Second Circuit, 2008)
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)
Cuoco v. Moritsugu
222 F.3d 99 (Second Circuit, 2000)
Salahuddin v. Cuomo
861 F.2d 40 (Second Circuit, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Pereira v. New York City Department of Education, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pereira-v-new-york-city-department-of-education-nysd-2024.