Surdak Read v. Town of Ramapo Police Dept.

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedMay 31, 2022
Docket7:22-cv-03044
StatusUnknown

This text of Surdak Read v. Town of Ramapo Police Dept. (Surdak Read v. Town of Ramapo Police Dept.) 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
Surdak Read v. Town of Ramapo Police Dept., (S.D.N.Y. 2022).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK MICHELLE B. SURDAK READ, Plaintiff, -against- 22-CV-3044 (LTS) TOWN OF RAMAPO POLICE DEPT.; P.O. ORDER TO AMEND BUCKLEY; P.O. FERGUSON; A.D.A. VERONICA PHILLIPS, Defendants. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiff, who is appearing pro se, brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, asserting claims in connection with a “domestic incident.” Plaintiff names as defendants an Assistant District Attorney and two police officers and brings claims for “illegal seizure of evidence” and “sexual harassment.” The complaint refers to Plaintiff Michelle Read in the third person, and thus raises doubts as to whether she authored the complaint. By order dated April 15, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis, that is, without prepayment of fees. For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint within 60 days of the date of this order. STANDARD OF REVIEW The Court must dismiss an in forma pauperis 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 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. BACKGROUND The following facts are taken from the complaint. On April 4, 2021, there was a “domestic incident” at Plaintiff Michelle Read’s home at 114 Pondview Drive in Rockland County, New York. (ECF 2 at 2, 5.) Plaintiff went to Good Samaritan Hospital. While she was there, Police Officer Buckley took photographs of her “alleged” injury. (Id. at 4.) Plaintiff was told to call police officers after she was discharged from the hospital to “finish signing the charges.” (Id.) Plaintiff was discharged at about 9:20 p.m., and called the officers when she was home. The officers came back to the house. The complaint notes that Police Officer Ferguson testified to a Grand Jury that he and Officer Buckley “did not locate the suspect there” at the house and that they “were unable to

locate the weapon that was used,” but Police Officer Buckley “took photographs of the victim[’]s injury.” (Id. at 7.) Some portions of the complaint appear to be written by someone other than the Plaintiff. The complaint includes arguments that Police Officer Buckley “deliberately disregards to Mrs. M. Reads right to privacy. Used photographs depicting her undergarments, and allege injuries she sustained by whatever way she did.”1 (Id. at 9-10.) The complaint also suggests that Plaintiff may herself have caused the injuries that she sustained: The photographs do not “fairly and accuretly depicted the victims condition at the time she was seen at hospital. 4 ½ hours go past. Such an allege victim with mental health issues could have made self injuries. Mrs. M. Reads diagnosis supports this finding.” (Id. at 10.)

There are also arguments in the complaint that Plaintiff’s statements to police should have been deemed inadmissible in criminal proceedings because they did not qualify as “excited utterances,” given the length of time between the alleged assault and the statements. (Id. at 11.) The complaint refers to additional Grand Jury testimony and arguments made in motions (“See Respondents Response to Omnibus Motion”) (id. at 8), which may refer to recent criminal proceedings for David Paul Read.2

1 The spelling and punctuation in this and other quoted material is from the original. 2 According to public records, David Read has pending criminal charges in People v. Read, 70335-21, in connection with his arrest on assault and weapons charges on April 4, 2021, which is the same date as the incident giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims. Assistant District Attorney Phillips, who is named as a defendant in this action, is the prosecutor in those criminal DISCUSSION A nonattorney may not appear pro se on behalf of any other party. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1654, parties in federal court “may plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel.” The statute “recognizes that an individual generally has the right to proceed pro se with

respect to his own claims or claims against him personally” or to be represented by a licensed attorney. Berrios v. N.Y.C. Hous. Auth., 564 F.3d 130, 132 (2d Cir. 2009). The right to proceed pro se does not extend to “an individual who is not licensed as an attorney” who appears on another person’s behalf. United States v. Flaherty, 540 F.3d 89, 92 (2d Cir. 2008). As an initial matter, many of the allegations in the complaint appear to have been written by someone other than the named Plaintiff.

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)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (Supreme Court, 2007)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court, 2009)
Hill v. Curcione
657 F.3d 116 (Second Circuit, 2011)
Berrios v. New York City Housing Authority
564 F.3d 130 (Second Circuit, 2009)
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)
Cuoco v. Moritsugu
222 F.3d 99 (Second Circuit, 2000)
Salahuddin v. Cuomo
861 F.2d 40 (Second Circuit, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Surdak Read v. Town of Ramapo Police Dept., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/surdak-read-v-town-of-ramapo-police-dept-nysd-2022.