Pereira v. New York City Department of Education

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided April 15, 2024·No. 1:23-cv-10396·Unknown

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 proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis (“IFP”), filed this action alleging that Defendants violated his rights. By order dated January 16, 2024, the Court directed Plaintiff to amend his complaint to address deficiencies in his original pleading. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on February 16, 2024, and the Court has reviewed it. For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants Plaintiff 30 days’ leave to file a second amended complaint. BACKGROUND Plaintiff’s original submission consisted of a 26-page complaint, along with approximately 1,620 pages of attachments and exhibits, and included an array of unrelated allegations against multiple defendants. Among other assertions, Plaintiff alleged that: (1) his minor daughters were sexually abused by teachers at their schools, day care centers, and a homeless shelter; (2) he received inadequate or negligent healthcare in various New York City- area hospitals; and (3) he won judgments in various state court actions, but the defendants never paid him. Plaintiff also described various problems he has had with various private businesses and City and federal government agencies. By order dated January 16, 2024, the Court directed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within 60 days. (ECF 4.) The Court’s order: (1) dismissed any claims Plaintiff may have been attempting to assert on behalf of his daughters without prejudice to his daughters pursing those claims on their own behalf; (2) determined that Plaintiff was attempting to assert unrelated claims against multiple different defendants in violation of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 18 and 20, and (3) instructed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint concerning one of the incidents detailed in his complaint, and noted that if Plaintiff wished to pursue claims arising

from other incidents, he must do so in separate actions. The Court further instructed Plaintiff that his amended complaint must comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, which requires a short and plain statement showing that Plaintiff is entitled to relief. The Court expressly instructed Plaintiff to avoid presenting unrelated or extraneous allegations and including voluminous attachments and exhibits. Finally, the Court instructed Plaintiff that his amended complaint must allege facts demonstrating that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction of his claims. The Court noted that Plaintiff appeared to be attempting to assert state law claims, which must be brought under the Court’s diversity of citizenship jurisdiction, but that Plaintiff did not demonstrate that the Court

has diversity jurisdiction because both he and Defendants were citizens of the State of New York. The Court instructed Plaintiff that if he seeks to assert state law claims, such as claims for negligence or medical malpractice, he must allege facts demonstrating that he and all defendants are citizens of different states and that his claims are worth in excess of the $75,000 jurisdictional threshold. Plaintiff’s amended complaint consists of the court’s amended complaint form to which he attaches 97 pages of documents, including 24 additional documents, captioned as amended complaints, naming various defendants and bearing the case number of this action. The caption of the amended complaint form names the City of New York, nine New York City agencies, and the United States Postal Service. On that form, Plaintiff asserts claims for “failure to protect my rights laws from discrimination and unfair treatment such medic issues, justice, housing, employment, public accommodations, racial discrimination.” (ECF 5, at 3.)1 He alleges facts regarding treatment at various health care facilities around the City of New York from February 2006 to the present.

In another “amended complaint,” Plaintiff names as the Defendant “Ophthalmology Saint Barnabas Hospital; Columbia Presbyterian Medical Center,” and he appears to allege that it took him 10 years to get diagnosed with glaucoma. (See id. at 16-17.) Another “amended complaint” lists the “New York City Department of Health and Hospital Corporation” and the City of New York as Defendants. Plaintiff alleges that, on February 22, 2011, a doctor named Joseph DeFrank at Saint Barnabas Southern Medical Center “isolated” Plaintiff in an exam room and persistently Assaulted me immediately touching all over my body in simulation of making manually search of inflammation of linfatic nodules on around of my body specifically on the very sensitive skin places like neck, arm, axes, inguinale zone of my legs and genitals private parts, chest, lower abdomenal quadrant, testicles and finally go to the my Penile, trying excersing to arise my willing to the libido state. (Id. at 32.) Plaintiff accuses DeFrank of “strategic planning way to conduct exams after returning paperwork from Lab and or fundamentally given diagnosis on which Mr. Joseph DeFrank excuses being a need exercise for further investigations.” (Id.) Another “amended complaint” names the New York City Administration for Children’s Services as the Defendant and alleges that, on an unspecified date at the “Shelters Day Care,”

1 Plaintiff writes using irregular capitalization. For readability, the Court uses standard capitalization when quoting from the amended complaint. All other spelling, punctuation, and grammar are as in the original unless otherwise indicated. “most of the teachers were assigned to [Plaintiff’s daughters] frequently exploited and molested sexually my Baby daughters to such a point I have been going reporting to the Police and Administration Children Service.” (Id. at 43.) The police, however, “were staying in against me together with” ACS. (Id.) Other “amended complaints” name and assert various allegations against Steven E.

Savage, an attorney who may have represented Plaintiff in some type of civil proceeding; Yared AutoBody Service; private individuals Omar Diallo and “Ms. Denise”; “TAP-Portugal Airlines”; Ethiopian Airlines; and “God Bless Auto Mechanic Center,” among others. DISCUSSION Plaintiff’s amended complaint does not cure the deficiencies identified in the Court’s January 16, 2024 order to amend. Specifically, the amended complaint again asserts unrelated claims against multiple different defendants in violation of Rules 18 and 20 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (See ECF 4, at 5-6.) The Court notes that Plaintiff submitted an amended complaint form to which he attached multiple “amended complaints,” which could indicate some confusion about the Court’s prior order. In an abundance of caution, the Court therefore grants

him leave to file a second amended complaint concerning one of the incidents he details in the amended complaint. Plaintiff may choose which incident he wishes to pursue. Plaintiff must allege only facts concerning this one incident and name as defendants only those individuals or entities involved in the incident that is the focus of the second amended complaint. If Plaintiff wishes to pursue other unrelated claims against multiple different defendants, he may do so in separate actions by filing new, separate complaints that comply with Rules 18 and 20 governing joinder and parties, and by either paying the $405.00 in filing fees for each case or filing an IFP application in each case.

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

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

Pereira v. New York City Department of Education (Pereira v. New York City Department of Education) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Coppedge v. United States
369 U.S. 438 (Supreme Court, 1962)
Hill v. Curcione
657 F.3d 116 (Second Circuit, 2011)
Salahuddin v. Cuomo
861 F.2d 40 (Second Circuit, 1988)