Rajapakse v. Shaw

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided January 5, 2021·No. 1:20-cv-10473·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK SAMANTHA D. RAJAPAKSE, Plaintiff, 20-CV-10473 (LLS) -against- ORDER TO AMEND SEYFARTH SHAW; ROBERT SZYBA; CARLA LAINGAN, Defendants. LOUIS L. STANTON, United States District Judge: Plaintiff, appearing pro se, invokes the Court’s federal question jurisdiction, alleging that Defendants violated her rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. By order dated December 29, 2020, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed without prepayment of fees, that is, in forma pauperis (“IFP”). For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint within sixty 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. 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. The Supreme Court has held that under Rule 8, a complaint must 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, a resident of Chattanooga, Tennessee, submitted her claims using the Court’s general complaint form. She checks the box to invoke the Court’s federal question jurisdiction, and in the space to indicate which of her federal constitutional or federal statutory rights have

been violated, Plaintiff writes, “Fourteenth Amendment.” (ECF No. 2, at 2.) She names as defendants Seyfarth Shaw, a law firm with offices in New York, Chicago, and Massachusetts; Robert Szyba, who appears to be a partner at Seyfarth; and Carla Laingan, who Plaintiff lists as “counsel” and for whom she provides a Boston, Massachusetts address. (Id. at 4.) Plaintiff states that her claims arise from events occurring in New York, Boston, and Tennessee from June 2020 to December 3, 2020. (Id. at 5.) In the “facts” section of the complaint form, Plaintiff writes, “Please see attach complaint.” (Id.) But she does not attach a complaint and her submission includes no other factual allegations. As her injuries, Plaintiff lists “denial of security background check, afraid to use credit & denial, denial of credit, [and] emotional & physical damages.”1 (Id. at 6.) She seeks $1 million in “physical damages.” (Id.) DISCUSSION A. Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure The complaint does not comply with Rule 8’s requirement that it provide a short and plain statement showing that Plaintiff is entitled to relief. Plaintiff’s complaint does not allege

any facts, and her submission appears to be incomplete. The Court is therefore unable to determine whether Plaintiff has stated a claim. The Court therefore grants Plaintiff 60 days’ leave to file an amended complaint. B. Venue Under the general venue provision, a civil action may be brought in: (1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located; (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred . . . ; or (3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided in this section, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to such action. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). For venue purposes, a “natural person” resides in the district where the person is domiciled. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(1). And an entity that is not a person, “whether or not incorporated, shall be deemed to reside, if a defendant, in any judicial district in which such defendant is subject to the court's personal jurisdiction with respect to the civil action in question.” § 1391(c)(2).

1 Plaintiff writes with irregular capitalization. For readability, the Court uses standard capitalization when quoting from the complaint. Plaintiff alleges that she is a resident of Chattanooga, Tennessee. She describes Seyfarth Shaw as having offices in New York, Chicago, and Massachusetts, and provides a Chicago, Illinois address. Plaintiff provides addresses for the individual defendants in New York, New York and Boston, Massachusetts. Though the complaint does not include specific factual allegations, Plaintiff asserts that her claims arose in New York, Boston, and Tennessee. In any amended complaint, Plaintiff should allege facts showing that venue is proper in this district. LEAVE TO AMEND Plaintiff is granted leave to amend her complaint to detail her claims and to allege facts

showing that venue is proper in this Court. In the statement of claim, Plaintiff must provide a short and plain statement of the relevant facts supporting each claim against each defendant named in the amended complaint. Plaintiff is also directed to provide the addresses for any named defendants.

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

Rajapakse v. Shaw, (S.D.N.Y. 2021).

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

Related

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (Supreme Court, 2007)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court, 2009)
Harris v. Mills
572 F.3d 66 (Second Circuit, 2009)