Opinion
5:23-cv-00663 (GTS/TWD)
06-20-2023
NICOLE LEE DUNN, Plaintiff, v. JOHN DUBIEL, et al., Defendants.
NICOLE LEE DUNN Plaintiff, pro se
NICOLE LEE DUNN Plaintiff, pro se
ORDER AND REPORT-RECOMMENDATION
THÉRÈSE WILEY DANCKS, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Presently before the Court is a complaint filed by pro se plaintiff Nicole Lee Dunn (“Plaintiff”) together with an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP application”). (Dkt. Nos. 1, 2.)
I. IFP APPLICATION
“When a civil action is commenced in a federal district court, the statutory filing fee, currently set at $402, must ordinarily be paid. 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). A court is authorized, however, to permit a litigant to proceed in forma pauperis status if a party “is unable to pay” the standard fee for commencing an action. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). After reviewing Plaintiff's IFP application (Dkt. No. 2), the Court finds she meets this standard. Therefore, Plaintiff's IFP application is granted.
II. SUFFICIENCY OF THE COMPLAINT
A. Legal Standard
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) directs that, when a plaintiff seeks to proceed IFP, “the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that - . . . (B) the action . . . (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
To determine whether an action is frivolous, a court must look to see whether the complaint “lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). To survive dismissal for failure to state a claim, a complaint must plead enough facts to state a claim that is “plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). While Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which sets forth the general rules of pleading, “does not require detailed factual allegations, . . . it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Id.
In determining whether a complaint states a claim upon which relief may be granted, “the court must accept the material facts alleged in the complaint as true and construe all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor.” Hernandez v. Coughlin, 18 F.3d 133, 136 (2d Cir. 1994) (citation omitted). “[T]he tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. Where a plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the court construes his pleadings “to raise the strongest arguments that they suggest.” See Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 475 (2d Cir. 2006) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks omitted). However, this “does not exempt a [pro se litigant] from compliance with relevant rules of procedural and substantive law.” Traguth v. Zuck, 710 F.2d 90, 95 (2d Cir. 1983).
Moreover, federal courts have an “independent obligation” to consider the presence or absence of subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte. Leopard Marine & Trading, Ltd. v. Easy Street, Ltd., 896 F.3d 174, 181 (2d Cir. 2018) (quoting In re Quigley Co., Inc., 676 F.3d 45, 50 (2d Cir. 2012)). “If subject matter jurisdiction is lacking, the action must be dismissed.” Id.; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). Subject matter jurisdiction can never be waived or forfeited. Logan v. New York Mun. Ins. Reciprocal for Town of Windsor, New York, No. 3:23-CV-0471 (GTS/ML), 2023 WL 3020195, at *4 (N.D.N.Y. Apr. 20, 2023) (citations omitted).
A federal court exercises limited jurisdiction pursuant to Article III of the Constitution. Id. “It has subject matter jurisdiction over claims in which: (1) there is a ‘federal question' in that a colorable claim arises under the ‘Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States,' 28 U.S.C. § 1331; and/or if (2) there is complete “diversity of citizenship” between each plaintiff and all defendants and a minimum of $75,000 in controversy, 28 U.S.C. § 1332.” Id.
The existence of a federal question is governed by the “well-pleaded complaint” rule, which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. A well-pleaded complaint presents a federal question where it “establishes either that federal law creates the cause of action or that the plaintiff's right to relief necessarily depends on a resolution of a substantial question of federal law.” Franchise Tax Bd. of State of Cal. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 9 (1983).
B. Analysis
Plaintiff's complaint is brought against Defendants John Dubiel, Chadwick ResidenceBoard President; Jenni Gratien, Executive Director; Anne Gannon, Administrator/Assistant to Executive Dir.; and Joy M. King, Case Manager/Supervisor. (Dkt. No. 1.) The complaint is difficult to decipher and fails to provide sufficient information for the Court to review or for Defendants to have notice of the claims against them. Moreover, it does not appear this Court has jurisdiction over the action.
Chadwick Residence appears to be a “Syracuse based nonprofit that provide supportive housing and supportive services for women and women with children experiencing homelessness.” See https://giffordfoundation.org/chadwick-residence-housing-as-a-human-right/ (last visited June 13, 2023).
From what the Court can glean, from approximately April 2017 through September 2019, Defendants repeatedly ignored Plaintiff's telephone calls and did not respond to her “concerns/complaints/grievances.” Id. at 2. Plaintiff “endured poor quality living conditions, abusive situations.” Id. She references “discrepancies to Onondaga County Department of Social Services and erroneous information to monthly rent not paid; therefore a cause to eviction processes to which [Plaintiff] endured severe hardship per inaccurate information and improper legal process.” Id. at 5. As for “relief and damages,” Plaintiff seeks, in part, “financial to resident, disclosure to defendants' involvement and/or their affiliates etc; possible to order of protection, release of documents, etc. per my prior requests; and possible to additional financial [illegible]. Id. at 7.
Page references to documents identified by docket number are to the numbers assigned by the CM/ECF docketing system maintained by the Clerk's Office. Unless otherwise indicated, excerpts from the record are reproduced exactly as they appear in the original and errors in spelling, punctuation, and grammar have not been corrected.
The civil cover sheet, which accompanied Plaintiff's complaint, alleges the basis of the Court's jurisdiction as “U.S. Government Plaintiff.” (Dkt. No. 1-1.) As to the brief description of the case, she writes “identity theft, distress, duress, financial hardship, etc.” Id. She also selected “Assault, Libel & Slander” and “Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization.” Id.
The Court is mindful that a pro se litigant's pleadings are held to a less strict standard than attorney drafted pleadings. See Fed. Express Corp. v. Holowecki, 552 U.S. 389, 402 (2008) (“Even in the formal litigation context, pro se litigants are held to a lesser pleading standard than other parties.”). However, a court's initial review of a complaint under § 1915(e) must encompass the applicable standards of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a pleading must contain:
(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction . . .;
(2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; and
(3) a demand for the relief sought, which may include relief in the alternative or different types of relief.Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Rule 8's purpose “is to give fair notice of the claim being asserted so as to permit the adverse party the opportunity to file a responsive answer [and] prepare an adequate defense.” Hudson v. Artuz, No. 95 Civ. 4768, 1998 WL 832708, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 30, 1998) (quoting Powell v. Marine Midland Bank, 162 F.R.D. 15, 16 (N.D.N.Y. 1995)). Moreover, Rule 10 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides, in part:
(b) Paragraphs; Separate Statements. A party must state its claims or defenses in numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances. . . .Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b). Rule 10's purpose is to “provide an easy mode of identification for referring to a particular paragraph in a prior pleading[.]” Clervrain v. Robbins, No. 1:22-cv-1248 (MAD/DJS), 2022 WL 17517312, at *2 (N.D.N.Y. Dec. 8, 2022) (citation omitted), report and recommendation adopted, 2023 WL 3170384 (N.D.N.Y. May 1, 2023). In addition, the Court shall dismiss any action where the complaint fails to allege facts plausibly suggesting subject matter jurisdiction. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3).
A complaint that does not comply with these Rules “presents far too heavy a burden in terms of defendants' duty to shape a comprehensive defense and provides no meaningful basis for the Court to assess the sufficiency of [the plaintiff's] claims,” and may properly be dismissed by the court. Gonzales v. Wing, 167 F.R.D. 352, 355 (N.D.N.Y. 1996).
Plaintiff's complaint clearly does not satisfy these requirements. The nature of the complaint is unclear and Plaintiff has not alleged facts plausibly suggesting that the Court has subject matter of this action. Given its lack of clarity, the complaint is clearly subject to dismissal.
Nevertheless, “[a] court should not dismiss a complaint filed by a pro se litigant without granting leave to amend at least once when a liberal reading of the complaint gives any indication that a valid claim might be stated.” Branum v. Clark, 927 F.2d 698, 704-05 (2d Cir. 1991). Although the Court has serious doubts, it is not clear whether better pleading would permit Plaintiff to assert a cognizable cause of action against Defendants. Out of deference to Plaintiff's pro se status, the Court recommends the complaint be dismissed with leave to amend.
The Court advises Plaintiff that should she be permitted to amend her complaint, any amended pleading she submits must comply with Rules 8 and 10 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Any such amended complaint, which shall supersede and replace in its entirety the previous complaint filed by Plaintiff, must contain sequentially numbered paragraphs containing only one act of misconduct per paragraph. Thus, if Plaintiff claims that her civil and/or constitutional rights were violated by more than one defendant, or on more than one occasion, she should include a corresponding number of paragraphs in her amended complaint for each such allegation, with each paragraph specifying (i) the alleged act of misconduct; (ii) the date, including the year, on which such misconduct occurred; (iii) the names of each and every individual who participated in such misconduct; (iv) where appropriate, the location where the alleged misconduct occurred; and, (v) the nexus between such misconduct and Plaintiff's civil and/or constitutional rights.
Plaintiff is further cautioned that no portion of her prior complaint shall be incorporated into her amended complaint by reference. Any amended complaint submitted by Plaintiff must set forth all of the claims she intends to assert against the defendants and must demonstrate that a case or controversy exists between the Plaintiff and the defendants which Plaintiff has a legal right to pursue and over which this Court has jurisdiction. If Plaintiff is alleging the defendants violated a law, she should specifically refer to such law.
WHEREFORE, for the reasons stated herein, it is hereby
ORDERED that Plaintiff's IFP application (Dkt. No. 2) is GRANTED; and it is further
Plaintiff will still be required to pay fees that she may incur in this action, including copying and/or witness fees.
RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's complaint (Dkt. No. 1) be DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk serve a copy of this Order and Report-Recommendation, along with copies of the unpublished decisions cited herein in accordance with Lebron v. Sanders, 557 F.3d 76 (2d Cir. 2009) (per curiam) on Plaintiff.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), Plaintiff has fourteen days within which to file written objections to the foregoing report. Such objections shall be filed with the Clerk of the Court. FAILURE TO OBJECT TO THIS REPORT WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS WILL PRECLUDE APPELLATE REVIEW . Roldan v. Racette, 984 F.2d 85 (2d Cir. 1993) (citing Small v. Sec 'y of Health and Human Servs., 892 F.2d 15 (2d Cir. 1989)); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (Supp. 2013); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72, 6(a).
If you are proceeding pro se and are served with this Order and Report-Recommendation by mail, three additional days will be added to the fourteen-day period, meaning that you have seventeen days from the date the Order and Report-Recommendation was mailed to you to serve and file objections. Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(d). If the last day of that prescribed period falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, then the deadline is extended until the end of the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday. Fed. R. Civ. 6(a)(1)(C).
IT IS SO ORDERED.