Perez Padilla v. Department of Social Service Housing Authorities

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedApril 3, 2023
Docket1:22-cv-08073
StatusUnknown

This text of Perez Padilla v. Department of Social Service Housing Authorities (Perez Padilla v. Department of Social Service Housing Authorities) 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
Perez Padilla v. Department of Social Service Housing Authorities, (S.D.N.Y. 2023).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK LOURDES CANDITA PEREZ PADILLA, Plaintiff, 22-CV-8073 (LTS) -against- ORDER OF DISMISSAL DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICE WITH LEAVE TO REPLEAD HOUSING AUTHORITIES, et al., Defendants. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiff, who is appearing pro se, brings this action using the court’s general complaint form. She purports to invoke the court’s federal question and diversity of citizenship jurisdiction, alleging that Defendants have violated her rights. By order dated February 16, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), that is, without prepayment of fees. For the reasons that follow, the Court dismisses the complaint, but grants Plaintiff leave to replead within 60 days of the date of this order. 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. Rule 8 requires a complaint to include enough facts to state a claim for relief “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. In reviewing the complaint, the Court must accept all well-pleaded factual allegations as true. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009). But it does not have to accept as true “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action,” which are essentially just legal conclusions. 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.

BACKGROUND Plaintiff Lourdes Candita Perez Padilla, who resides in Yonkers, New York, brings this complaint relaying various events that have occurred in her life from 2015 to 2022. Plaintiff’s 15-page complaint was filed on September 21, 2022. Plaintiff subsequently filed four letters on December 15, 2022, December 30, 2022, January 23, 2023, and February 6, 2023, repeating much of the same information contained in her complaint. (ECF Nos. 4-7.) Plaintiff alleges that the events giving rise to her claims occurred in Yonkers, New York, and that the dates of occurrence were “2018 – 2022 – 2016 – 2015.” (Id. at 5.) She seeks monetary damages. DISCUSSION Plaintiff’s complaint is not short and plain, and it therefore fails to comply with Rule 8. Furthermore, the Court has closely scrutinized Plaintiff’s complaint, and, despite the extensive information that Plaintiff presents, the Court is unable to discern the claims she is trying to assert against each named Defendant. The Court therefore dismisses the complaint for failure to state a

claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Even if the Court could discern each claim Plaintiff is attempting to assert, her complaint suffers from other deficiencies. Among the many Defendants Plaintiff names are Saint Joseph’s Medical Center and St. Vincent’s Hospital Westchester, which are Catholic health care facilities, sponsored by the Sisters of Charity of St. Vincent de Paul of New York,1 a construction company, an attorney, a pharmacy, an orthopedic doctor, a dentist, a supermarket, and other private individuals. Plaintiff also seeks to assert a claim against Yaxaira Bermeo for sexually harassing Plaintiff’s husband. As explained below, Plaintiff has not stated a viable claim against any of these Defendants. It also does not appear that Plaintiff’s claims against the named Defendants are properly joined.2

1 See https://www.saintjosephs.org/about-us/mission (last visited February 16, 2023). 2 Under Rule 20 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a plaintiff may not pursue unrelated claims against multiple defendants. Deskovic v. City of Peekskill, 673 F. Supp. 2d 154, 167 (S.D.N.Y. 2009). Rule 20(a)(2) permits a plaintiff to join multiple defendants in one action if: (A) any right to relief is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the alternative arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions . . .; and (B) any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action. Although courts have interpreted Rule 20(a) liberally to allow related claims to be tried within a single proceeding, Barr Rubber Products Co. v. Sun Rubber Co., 425 F.2d 1114, 1126-27 (2d Cir. 1970), “the mere allegation that Plaintiff was injured by all Defendants is not sufficient to join unrelated parties as defendants in the same lawsuit pursuant to Rule 20(a),” Deskovic, 673 F. Supp. 2d at 167; Webb v. Maldonado, No. 3:13-CV-144 (RNC), 2013 WL 3243135, at *3 (D. Conn. June 26, 2013) (“Unrelated claims against different defendants belong in different suits . . . to prevent the sort of morass” created by a complaint with more than twenty defendants and countless unrelated claims.”) (quotation and citation omitted). A. Claims on Behalf of Others Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Yaxaira Bermeo, a social worker, sexually harassed Plaintiff’s husband, and Plaintiff seeks monetary damages from Defendant Bermeo for her alleged actions towards Plaintiff’s husband. As a nonlawyer, however, Plaintiff can only represent her own interests. 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)
Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co.
398 U.S. 144 (Supreme Court, 1970)
Polk County v. Dodson
454 U.S. 312 (Supreme Court, 1981)
Carnegie-Mellon University v. Cohill
484 U.S. 343 (Supreme Court, 1988)
West v. Atkins
487 U.S. 42 (Supreme Court, 1988)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (Supreme Court, 2007)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court, 2009)
Eagle Associates v. Bank of Montreal
926 F.2d 1305 (Second Circuit, 1991)
Hill v. Curcione
657 F.3d 116 (Second Circuit, 2011)
Sykes v. Bank of America
723 F.3d 399 (Second Circuit, 2013)
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)
Kehr Ex Rel. Kehr v. Yamaha Motor Corp., USA
596 F. Supp. 2d 821 (S.D. New York, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Perez Padilla v. Department of Social Service Housing Authorities, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/perez-padilla-v-department-of-social-service-housing-authorities-nysd-2023.