Rosa v. Cook

D. Connecticut

Rosa v. Cook

District Court, D. Connecticut·Decided August 2, 2022·No. 3:22-cv-00865·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

------------------------------X : ALEXANDER ROSA : Civil No. 3:22CV00865(SALM) : v. : : ROLLIN COOK, et al. : August 2, 2022 : ------------------------------X

INITIAL REVIEW ORDER

Self-represented plaintiff Alexander Rosa (“plaintiff”) is a sentenced inmate in the custody of the Connecticut Department of Correction (“DOC”), currently housed at the Garner Correctional Institution (“Garner”).1 Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 against 42 defendants. See Doc. #1 at 1, 2-3. All defendants are sued in their official and individual capacities. See id. at 1.

1 The Court may take judicial notice of matters of public record. See, e.g., Mangiafico v. Blumenthal, 471 F.3d 391, 398 (2d Cir. 2006); United States v. Rivera, 466 F. Supp. 3d 310, 313 (D. Conn. 2020) (taking judicial notice of BOP inmate location information); Ligon v. Doherty, 208 F. Supp. 2d 384, 386 (E.D.N.Y. 2002) (taking judicial notice of state prison website inmate location information). The Court takes judicial notice of the Connecticut DOC website, which reports that plaintiff is a sentenced inmate. See Connecticut State Department of Correction, Inmate Information, http://www.ctinmateinfo.state.ct.us/detailsupv.asp?id_inmt_num=3 81946 (last visited July 28, 2022). I. LEGAL STANDARD Under section 1915A of Title 28 of the United States Code, the Court must review any “complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.” 28 U.S.C. §1915A(a). The Court then must “dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the

complaint, if” it “is frivolous or malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. §1915A(b). The commands of §1915A “apply to all civil complaints brought by prisoners against governmental officials or entities regardless of whether the prisoner has paid the filing fee.” Carr v. Dvorin, 171 F.3d 115, 116 (2d Cir. 1999) (per curiam). Dismissal under this provision may be with or without prejudice. See Shakur v. Selsky, 391 F.3d 106, 112 (2d Cir. 2004). A civil complaint must include sufficient facts to afford defendants fair notice of the claims and the grounds upon which they are based and to demonstrate a plausible right to relief.

See Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-56 (2007). Conclusory allegations are not sufficient. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Rather, a plaintiff must plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. It is well-established that complaints filed by self- represented litigants “‘must be construed liberally and interpreted to raise the strongest arguments that they suggest.’” Sykes v. Bank of Am., 723 F.3d 399, 403 (2d Cir. 2013) (quoting Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474 (2d Cir. 2006)); see also Tracy v. Freshwater, 623 F.3d

90, 101-02 (2d Cir. 2010) (discussing special rules of solicitude for self-represented litigants). However, even self- represented parties must comply with Rule 8 and the other rules of pleading applicable in all federal cases. See Harnage v. Lightner, 916 F.3d 138, 141 (2d Cir. 2019); see also Wynder v. McMahon, 360 F.3d 73, 79 n.11 (2d Cir. 2004) (“[T]he basic requirements of Rule 8 apply to self-represented and counseled plaintiffs alike.”). II. DISCUSSION The Complaint, which is handwritten and single spaced, is twenty pages long, and incredibly difficult to follow. See generally Doc. #1. The Court will not attempt to parse the allegations of the Complaint, which are rambling and accusatory,

and cross-reference to other actions filed by plaintiff. Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires “a short and plain statement of the claim[,]” Fed. R. Civ. P 8(a)(2), which is “sufficient to give the defendants fair notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Jones v. Nat’l Commc’ns and Surveillance Networks, 266 F. App’x 31, 32 (2d Cir. 2008) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). “The statement should be short because unnecessary prolixity in a pleading places an unjustified burden on the court and the party who must respond to it because they are forced to select the relevant material from a mass of

verbiage.” Salahuddin v. Cuomo, 861 F.2d 40, 42 (2d Cir. 1988) (citation and quotation marks omitted). “Complaints which ramble, which needlessly speculate, accuse, and condemn, and which contain circuitous diatribes far removed from the heart of the claim do not comport with these goals and this system; such complaints must be dismissed.” Prezzi v. Berzak, 57 F.R.D. 149, 151 (S.D.N.Y. 1972). In other words, a plaintiff must state clearly the specific legal and factual claims he brings. A civil complaint is not a vehicle for the venting of all of a plaintiff’s frustrations. The allegations of the Complaint are in the form of a stream of consciousness narrative of events stretching from

February 2019 through the present. Plaintiff states: “This particular 1983 civil complaint is about excessive force, cruel and unusual punishment, discrimination, and retaliation, and etc.” Doc. #1 at 13. The Complaint does not provide defendants with “fair notice of the claims” or “enable [defendants] to answer the complaint and prepare for trial.” Strunk v. U.S. House of Representatives, 68 F. App’x 233, 235 (2d Cir. 2003). Where, as here, “a complaint does not comply with the requirement that it be short and plain, the court has the power, on its own initiative ... to dismiss the complaint.” Harnage v. Lightner, 916 F.3d at 141 (citation and quotation marks omitted).2

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