Stephen v. Hall

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided May 31, 2019·No. 1:19-cv-02225-JPO-VF·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DARYL STEPHEN, Plaintiff, -against- 19-CV-2225 (LLS) TERRY HALL; DAVID JAKAB BAIL BOND; ORDER OF DISMISSAL DANIEL HAIER; CY VANCE JR., NEW YORK CITY Defendants. LOUIS L. STANTON, United States District Judge: Plaintiff, appearing pro se, brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Defendants violated his constitutional rights. Plaintiff paid the filing fees and filed this action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. By order dated March 6, 2019, that court transferred this action to this Court. See Stephen v Hall, No. 19-CV-1233 (BMC) (LB) (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 5, 2019). On May 24, 2019, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, realleging his claims and naming New York City as an additional Defendant. For the reasons that follow, the Court dismisses the amended complaint with leave to replead within 60 days of the date of this order. STANDARD OF REVIEW The Court has the authority to dismiss a complaint, even when the plaintiff has paid the filing fee, if it determines that the action is frivolous, Fitzgerald v. First E. Seventh Tenants Corp., 221 F.3d 362, 363-64 (2d Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (citing Pillay v. INS, 45 F.3d 14, 16-17 (2d Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (holding that Court of Appeals has inherent authority to dismiss frivolous appeal)), or that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 583 (1999). Moreover, the court “has the power to dismiss a complaint sua sponte for failure to state a claim,” Leonhard v. United States, 633 F.2d 599, 609 n. 11 (2d Cir. 1980), so long as the plaintiff is given notice and “an opportunity to be heard.” Thomas v. Scully, 943 F.2d 259, 260 (2d Cir.1991) (per curiam); see also Perez v. Ortiz, 849 F.2d 793, 797 (2d Cir. 1988); Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1357, at 301 & n. 3. The

Court is obliged, however, 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, 474-75 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (emphasis in original). The Court’s “special solicitude,” Ruotolo v. I.R.S., 28 F.3d 6, 8 (2d Cir. 1994) (per curiam), has its limits, however, because pro se pleadings still must comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8 requires a complaint to make a short and plain statement showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. A complaint states a claim for relief if the claim is plausible. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)).

To review a complaint for plausibility, the Court accepts all well-pleaded factual allegations as true and draws all reasonable inferences in the pleader’s favor. Id. But the Court need not accept “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action,” which are essentially legal conclusions. Id. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). As set forth in Iqbal: [T]he pleading standard Rule 8 announces does not require detailed factual allegations, but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully- harmed-me accusation. A pleading that offers labels and conclusions or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement. Id. (internal citations, quotation marks, and alteration omitted). 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 alleges that Defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights.

Plaintiff alleges: On February 22nd 2016, Terry Hall of David Jakab Bails Bond unethically surrendered Plaintiff [’s] bond.

On March 2nd 2018, Daniel Haier of the District Attorney Office told criminal court that Plaintiff[’s] family reneged on the bond. (Compl. at ¶ III.) Plaintiff seeks the following relief: Ten million dollars. Plaintiff had to post bail twice and was unable to afford legal counsel as a result. Plaintiff also seeks that Daniel Haier is reprimand[ed] from position of assistant district attorney. Plaintiff also seeks that David Jakab Bail Bond be held for sanctions, and or fines for violating Plaintiff[’s] Eighth Amendment. (Id. at ¶ IV.) DISCUSSION A. Claims Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege both that: (1) a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) the right was violated by a person acting under the color of state law, or a “state actor.” West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48-49 (1988). B. Private Defendants Plaintiff’s claims against bail bond agent Terry Hall and David Jakab Bail Bond Agency must be dismissed. A claim for relief under § 1983 must allege facts showing that each defendant acted under the color of a state “statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage.” 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Private parties are therefore not generally liable under the statute. Sykes v. Bank of

America, 723 F.3d 399, 406 (2d Cir. 2013) (citing Brentwood Acad. v. Tenn. Secondary Sch. Athletic Ass’n, 531 U.S. 288, 295 (2001)); see also Ciambriello v. Cnty. of Nassau, 292 F.3d 307, 323 (2d Cir. 2002) (“[T]he United States Constitution regulates only the Government, not private parties.”). As Defendants Terry Hall and David Jakab Bail Bond Agency are private parties who do not work for any state or other government body, Plaintiff has not stated a claim against these Defendants under § 1983. C. Prosecutorial Immunity The Court also dismisses Plaintiff’s claims against District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. and Assistant District Attorney Daniel Haier. Prosecutors are immune from civil suits for damages for acts committed within the scope of their official duties where the challenged activities are not

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

Stephen v. Hall, (S.D.N.Y. 2019).

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

Related

Coppedge v. United States
369 U.S. 438 (Supreme Court, 1962)
Imbler v. Pachtman
424 U.S. 409 (Supreme Court, 1976)
Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs.
436 U.S. 658 (Supreme Court, 1978)
West v. Atkins
487 U.S. 42 (Supreme Court, 1988)
Buckley v. Fitzsimmons
509 U.S. 259 (Supreme Court, 1993)
Ruhrgas Ag v. Marathon Oil Co.
526 U.S. 574 (Supreme Court, 1999)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (Supreme Court, 2007)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court, 2009)
Van de Kamp v. Goldstein
555 U.S. 335 (Supreme Court, 2009)
Chavis v. Chappius
618 F.3d 162 (Second Circuit, 2010)
Collazo v. Pagano
656 F.3d 131 (Second Circuit, 2011)
Sykes v. Bank of America
723 F.3d 399 (Second Circuit, 2013)
Simon v. City of New York
727 F.3d 167 (Second Circuit, 2013)