Opinion
No. 02-CV-1141 (RR)
February 20, 2002
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff, Wilfredo Morales, appearing pro se, sues the United States for declaratory judgment, alleging that he is in custody "as a result of a conflict of interest unredressable in the state or federal courts." Complaint, p. 2. Plaintiff further alleges that this judge "failed or refused to uphold the Constitution, treaties or laws of the United States . . . . for the purpose of maintaining him in custody with the knowledge of a conflict of interest and ensuing tainted judgment." Complaint, p. 2. Plaintiff requests a new trial "free of any [governmental] conflict" of interest. Complaint, p. 8. The court grants plaintiffs request to proceed in forma pauperis solely for the purpose of this order, but dismisses the complaint for the following reasons.
This section of plaintiff's complaint was written in capital letters. To allow for easier readability, the court has reproduced the text in upper and lower case letters.
Plaintiff was convicted on February 9, 1989 in Kings County for murder in the second degree. See N.Y. Penal Law § 125.25 [1] (McKinney 1987). His conviction was affirmed by the Appellate Division, Second Department, People v. Morales, 177 A.D.2d 516, 576 N.Y.S.2d 148 (2d Dep't 1991), and leave to appeal was denied, People v. Morales, 79 N.Y.2d 861, 580 N.Y.S.2d 733 (1992). Morales challenged his conviction by filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus with this court on February 11, 1992. The writ was denied in a Memorandum and Order dated April 18, 1994, familiarity with which is assumed. See Morales v. Bartlett, 92-CV-653 (RR). This decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals on April 17, 1995. Morales v. Bartlett, 54 F.3d 766 (2d Cir. 1995). The Supreme Court denied certiorari on October 10, 1995. Morales v. Bartlett, 516 U.S. 921 (1995). By mandate dated July 7, 1997, the Court of Appeals denied plaintiff's request to authorize a second habeas petition. See Morales v. Bartlett, 97-CV-3575.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B), a district court shall dismiss an in forma pauperis action where it is satisfied that the action is "(i) 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" Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(b)(i), dismissal is mandatory if the court determines that the action is frivolous. Livingston v. Adirondack Beverage Co., 141 F.3d 434, 437 (2d Cir. 1998). The instant case is frivolous in that it seeks to challenge the correctness of this court's 1994 habeas denial, a decision already affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B)(i) and the Clerk of the Court is directed to mark this case closed. The court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).