Washington v. Lindsay

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedJuly 31, 2023
Docket1:23-cv-05888
StatusUnknown

This text of Washington v. Lindsay (Washington v. Lindsay) 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
Washington v. Lindsay, (S.D.N.Y. 2023).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK CHARMEEN DENISE WASHINGTON, Plaintiff, 23-CV-5888 (LTS) -against- ORDER TO AMEND M.D. LINDSAY OF BELLEVUE HOSPITAL PSYCHIATRIST, Defendant. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiff brings this action pro se. By order dated July 24, 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 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 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. Rule 8 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 Plaintiff filed this complaint regarding events allegedly occurring at Bellevue Hospital from 2016 to present. The only facts alleged are as follows:

The manual pycosis Michael Tocco1 put me under became Lindsay Squirrels Faulty Diagnosis of schizophrenia and obesity. Due to prescribtion and lead to

1 Plaintiff recently filed a complaint against Tocco, whom Plaintiff alleges is a neurologist at Lenox Hill Hospital. See Washington v. Tocco, ECF 1:23-CV-5561, 1 (S.D.N.Y. July 27, 2023) (directing Plaintiff to file an amended complaint showing that the court has subject matter jurisdiction of her claims). Plaintiff has recently filed a number of other pro se complaints. See Washington v. Chong, ECF 1:23-CV-1936, 10 (S.D.N.Y. July 24, 2023) (dismissing complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction); Washington v. Paris Production Berlin, ECF 1:23-CV- 5922, 1 (S.D.N.Y. filed July 10, 2023); Washington v. JP Morgan Chase Bank Inc., ECF 1:23- CV-5819, 1 (S.D.N.Y. filed July 6, 2023); Washington v. New York Police Dep’t, ECF 1:23-CV- 5820, 1 (S.D.N.Y. filed July 6, 2023); Washington v. Abedin, ECF 1:23-CV-5887, 1 (S.D.N.Y. filed July 11, 2023). homelessness job loss, education denial and physical pain of assault and harrasment even rape and abortion.2 (ECF 1 ¶ III.) Plaintiff seeks “$14.44 per hour,” and “homeostatsis.” (Id. ¶ IV.) On July 11, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting pro bono counsel. (ECF 3.) DISCUSSION A. Subject matter jurisdiction The subject matter jurisdiction of the federal district courts is limited and is set forth generally in 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332. Under these statutes, federal jurisdiction is available only when a “federal question” is presented or when plaintiff and defendant are citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000. “‘[A]ny party or the court sua sponte, at any stage of the proceedings, may raise the question of whether

the court has subject matter jurisdiction.’” United Food & Commercial Workers Union, Local 919, AFL-CIO v. CenterMark Prop. Meriden Square, Inc., 30 F.3d 298, 301 (2d Cir. 1994) (quoting Manway Constr. Co., Inc. v. Hous. Auth. of the City of Hartford, 711 F.2d 501, 503 (2d Cir. 1983)); Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 583 (1999) (“[S]ubject-matter delineations must be policed by the courts on their own initiative . . . .”). “If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). Federal question jurisdiction To invoke federal question jurisdiction, a plaintiff’s claims must arise “under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. A case arises under federal

2 The Court quotes from the complaint verbatim. All grammar, punctuation, and spelling are in the original unless otherwise indicated. law if the complaint “establishes either that federal law creates the cause of action or that the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law.” Bay Shore Union Free Sch. Dist. v. Kain, 485 F.3d 730, 734-35 (2d Cir. 2007) (quoting Empire Healthchoice Assur., Inc. v. McVeigh, 547 U.S. 677, 690 (2006)). Mere invocation of

federal jurisdiction, without pleading any facts demonstrating a federal law claim, does not create federal subject matter jurisdiction. See Nowak v. Ironworkers Local 6 Pension Fund, 81 F.3d 1182, 1188-89 (2d Cir. 1996).

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)
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)
Nowak v. Ironworkers Local 6 Pension Fund
81 F.3d 1182 (Second Circuit, 1996)
Cuoco v. Moritsugu
222 F.3d 99 (Second Circuit, 2000)
Palazzo v. Corio
232 F.3d 38 (Second Circuit, 2000)
Salahuddin v. Cuomo
861 F.2d 40 (Second Circuit, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Washington v. Lindsay, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/washington-v-lindsay-nysd-2023.