Perez v. Empire City Casino

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedMay 16, 2023
Docket1:23-cv-03330
StatusUnknown

This text of Perez v. Empire City Casino (Perez v. Empire City Casino) 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 v. Empire City Casino, (S.D.N.Y. 2023).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK JUANA PEREZ, Plaintiff, 23-CV-3330 (LTS) -against- EMPIRE CITY CASINO; LAGUARDIA ORDER OF DISMISSAL AIRPORT; BURLINGTON STORES, 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 have violated her rights. She sues Empire City Casino, LaGuardia Airport, and Burlington Stores. By order dated April 21, 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 dismisses the complaint, but grants Plaintiff 30 days’ leave to replead her claims in 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 brings her claims using the court’s general complaint form. She checks the box to invoke the court’s federal question jurisdiction, and in response to the question asking which of her federal constitutional or federal statutory rights have been violated, Plaintiff writes, “the case is New York.” (ECF 1, at 2.) She states that her claims occurred in “NY” on April 15, 2023. (Id. at 5.) The following allegations are taken from the complaint. With respect to Defendant LaGuardia Airport, Plaintiff states, Flight arrives from Miami Fl. Flight arrived late 11:50 PM. Know the route that time. I live in another state I stayed in the airport another day 12 AM I stayed asleep I 4 AM I wake up my clothes are different I had 20 crosses, one large in my hand another in my ( ____ ) I have scared (4) two thousand nineteen. (Id.)1 With respect to Defendant Empire City Casino, Plaintiff states, “I went play casino won I [illegible] 10 more thousand dollars. I called the employees I had as money can’t play with money 2022 I went to play won, 3 seven morning him did not pay either.” (Id. at 5-6.)

1 The Court quotes from the complaint verbatim. All spelling, grammar, punctuation are as in the original unless indicated otherwise. With respect to Defendant Burlington Stores, Plaintiff alleges, “I went to buy a New York store on floor there was a [illegible] in said the my leg and feet hurt [illegible] can’t together with my family got the same problem.” (Id. at 6.) Plaintiff leaves blank the sections of the complaint form asking her to describe the injuries she received as a result of Defendants’ actions and the relief she is seeking.

Plaintiff attaches to the complaint (1) a letter from the Social Security Administration describing the Social Security benefits she is currently receiving (id. at 8-9); and (2) a “Civil Case Information Statement” form from the New Jersey Judiciary Civil Practice Division, on which she circles an option to state that she is bringing a personal injury action (id. at 10-12). DISCUSSION A. Rules 8 and 20 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 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. Under Rule 20 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a plaintiff may not pursue unrelated claims against multiple defendants. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2) (“Persons . . . may be joined in one action as defendants if: (A) any right to relief is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and (B) any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action.”) (emphasis added)); e.g., Peterson v. Regina, 935 F. Supp. 2d 628, 638 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (“Case law makes clear that ‘[i]n the absence of a connection between Defendants’ alleged misconduct, the mere allegation that Plaintiff was injured by all

Defendants is not sufficient [by itself] to join unrelated parties as defendants in the same lawsuit pursuant to Rule 20(a).’”) (alterations in original) (quoting Deskovic v. City of Peekskill, 673 F. Supp. 2d 154, 167 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)). Here, Plaintiff’s complaint does not comply with Rule 8. Plaintiff’s allegations, even when afforded the solitude due to pro se submissions, do not contain sufficient information to suggest a plausible legal claim against any of the defendants. In fact, as discussed below, it is unclear from the complaint whether this Court has subject matter jurisdiction of the action or whether venue is proper in this District.

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

Related

Hertz Corp. v. Friend
559 U.S. 77 (Supreme Court, 2010)
Coppedge v. United States
369 U.S. 438 (Supreme Court, 1962)
Wisconsin Department of Corrections v. Schacht
524 U.S. 381 (Supreme Court, 1998)
Ruhrgas Ag v. Marathon Oil Co.
526 U.S. 574 (Supreme Court, 1999)
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)
Bennie Cooper v. A. Sargenti Co., Inc.
877 F.2d 170 (Second Circuit, 1989)
Hill v. Curcione
657 F.3d 116 (Second Circuit, 2011)
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)
Nowak v. Ironworkers Local 6 Pension Fund
81 F.3d 1182 (Second Circuit, 1996)
Cuoco v. Moritsugu
222 F.3d 99 (Second Circuit, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Perez v. Empire City Casino, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/perez-v-empire-city-casino-nysd-2023.