Benyi v. New York

• Decision Date: 23 March 2021
• Docket Number: 3:20-CV-1463 (DNH/ML)
• Parties: JOHN J. BENYI, Plaintiff, v. NEW YORK; BINGHAMTON POLICE DEPARTMENT; BROOME COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT; NEW YORK APPELLATE DIVISION THIRD DEPARTMENT; UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK; SECOND CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS; DETECTIVE SERGEANT BARRY ANGEL; and DEPUTY SHERIFF WILLIAM GUYYEY, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York

JOHN J. BENYI, Plaintiff, v. NEW YORK; BINGHAMTON POLICE DEPARTMENT;BROOME COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT; NEW YORK APPELLATE DIVISION THIRD DEPARTMENT;UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK;SECOND CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS; DETECTIVE SERGEANT BARRY ANGEL;and DEPUTY SHERIFF WILLIAM GUYYEY, Defendants.

3:20-CV-1463 (DNH/ML)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

March 23, 2021

APPEARANCES:

OF COUNSEL:

JOHN J. BENYI

Plaintiff, Pro Se

Lea County Correctional Facility

6900 West Millen

Hobbs, New Mexico 88244

MIROSLAV LOVRIC, United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER and REPORT-RECOMMENDATION

The Clerk has sent this pro se complaint (Dkt. No. 1) together with an amended application to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. No. 4) filed by John J. Benyi ("Plaintiff") to the Court for review. For the reasons discussed below, I deny Plaintiff's amended in forma pauperis application (Dkt. No. 4) without prejudice, and I recommend that Plaintiff's Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) be dismissed in its entirety, in part (1) without prejudice and with leave to amend, and (2) with prejudice and without leave to amend.

I. BACKGROUND

On November 30, 2020, Plaintiff commenced this action by filing a verified Complaint and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (Dkt. Nos. 1, 2.) On December 1, 2020, the Court denied Plaintiff's in forma pauperis application as incomplete and administratively closed the case. (Dkt. No. 3.) On December 22, 2020, Plaintiff filed an amended in forma pauperis application. (Dkt. No. 4.) As a result, on January 4, 2021, the case was reopened and restored to the Court's active docket. (Dkt. No. 5.)

Construed as liberally¹ as possible, the Complaint alleges that Plaintiff's civil rights were violated by New York State, the Binghamton Police Department, the Broome County Sheriff's Department,² the New York Appellate Division Third Department, the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, Detective Sergeant Barry Angel,³ and Deputy Sheriff William Guyyey⁴ (collectively "Defendants"). (See generally Dkt. No. 1.) More specifically, Plaintiff alleges that on April 17, 1987, his rights were violated by Defendant Angel—an employee of Binghamton Police Department—who concocted a false confession to non-existent crimes. (Dkt. No. 1, Attach. 1 at 1.) In addition, Plaintiff alleges that Inspector Donald Conidin—an employee of the Binghamton Police Department—removed evidence from his dresser and that Patrolman William Grace—an employee of the Binghamton Police Department—stole his swiss army knife, and, on information and belief, stole his television, stereo, and audio and video tape collection. (Id.)

Plaintiff alleges that on May 30, 1987, Defendant Angel and Defendant Guyyey—an employee of Broome County Sheriff's Department—arranged to have him attacked by Scott Haven, which resulted in Plaintiff suffering "serious brain damage, . . . numerous surgeries," and required Plaintiff to take anti-seizure medications. (Id.)

Plaintiff alleges that "[a]ll [three] of the cops probably perjured themselves at trial," though it is unclear which three police officers Plaintiff is referring to. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that he was acquitted of all indicted charges at his criminal trial but convicted of an unindicted charge "on the say-so of a proven perjurer[,] [Defendant] Angel." (Id. at 2.)

Plaintiff alleges that he filed a motion pursuant to N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law § 440 but that Judge Monseratte "deliberately ignored the proven perjury and fraud." (Id.) In addition, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant New York Appellate Division Third Department "refused to review the case" three weeks before the chief justice was arrested by the Federal Bureau of Investigations. (Id.)

Plaintiff alleges that United States District Judge Hurd of Defendant United States District Court for the Northern District of New York, "accepted an unsigned, unnotarized 'affidavit' from ADA Lehman . . . and used it to dismiss the case."⁵ (Id.) In addition, Plaintiffalleges that Defendant Second Circuit Court of Appeals declared Plaintiff's case a threat to national security and took away Plaintiff's rights. (Id.)

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants conspired with the New York Department of Corrections to lose his legal papers when he was transferred to Arthur Kill Correctional Facility ("Arthur CF"). (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that "they"⁸ had me attacked a second time at Arthur CF. (Id.)

Plaintiff alleges that "they" provided false information to officials in New Mexico, which resulted in Plaintiff's arrest, his house being "invaded" three times, and threats to his wife unless Plaintiff pleaded guilty. (Id. 3.) Plaintiff alleges that he was arrested by his probation/parole officer for medical marijuana but that violation was dismissed. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that "they" claimed that "they" found illegal porn on his computer but that Plaintiff merely searched a file sharing program for "Playboy" and none of the porn that he viewed was "labeled in any way that appeared illegal." (Id.)

Plaintiff alleges that "PPO Megan," "PPO Kevin," their supervisor Pollada, and Douglas and Gladys at La Posada halfway house conspired to cover up their culpability by forcing Plaintiff to plead guilty to—what appears to be a violation of the terms of Plaintiff's probation or parole—failure to program. (Id. at 4.) Plaintiff alleges that his failure to program was "their" fault, not his, and that these individuals threatened to arrest his "innocent caregiver," Margaret Malone. (Id.)

The Complaint does not appear to assert any causes of action. However, attached to the Complaint are excerpts from a document with information and instructions for filing a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In addition, Plaintiff states that he filed an action against the New Mexico Probation/Parole and La Posada Halfway House alleging causes of action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 28 U.S.C. § 1997, and the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA").⁹ (Dkt. No. 1 at 7.)

For relief, Plaintiff seeks his immediate release to the care of his United States Department of Veterans Affairs ("V.A.") caregiver, Margaret Malone, and his V.A. fiduciary, Dorota Montour, in California. (Id. at 5.)

Plaintiff also filed an amended application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Dkt. No. 4.)

II. PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

"28 U.S.C. § 1915 permits an indigent litigant to commence an action in a federal court without prepayment of the filing fee that would ordinarily be charged." Cash v. Bernstein, 09-CV-1922, 2010 WL 5185047, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 26, 2010).¹⁰ "Although an indigent, incarcerated individual need not prepay the filing fee at the time of filing, he must subsequentlypay the fee, to the extent he is able to do so, through periodic withdrawals from his inmate accounts." Cash, 2010 WL 5185047, at *1 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b); Harris v. City of New York, 607 F.3d 18, 21 (2d Cir. 2010)).

Upon review, the Court finds that Plaintiff has submitted a completed IFP application which has been certified by an appropriate official at his facility (Dkt. No. 4), and which demonstrates economic need. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). However, Plaintiff has not filed the inmate authorization required in the Northern District pursuant to Local Rule 5.1.4(b)(1)(B). (See generally docket sheet; see also Dkt. No. 3.)¹¹

Accordingly, Plaintiff's amended application to proceed with this action IFP is denied without prejudice.

III. LEGAL STANDARD FOR INITIAL REVIEW OF COMPLAINT

Ordinarily, the finding that Plaintiff does not qualify for IFP status would end the Court's discussion, and Plaintiff, in light of his pro se status, would likely be afforded an opportunity to either prepay the full filing fee, or submit a new, completed, and certified application for IFP. Because, however, as is discussed more completely below, I find that Plaintiff's Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, 28 U.S.C. § 1915 requires that the court dismiss the action "[n]otwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid[.]" 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e); see also 28 U.S.C. 1915A(a) ("The court shall review . . . as soon as practicable . . . a complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.").

Section 1915(e) of Title 28 of the United States Code directs that, when a plaintiff seeks to proceed in forma pauperis, "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).¹² Similarly, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, a court must "identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint . . . is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or . . . seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief." 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b); see also Carr v. Dvorin, 171 F.3d 115, 116 (2d Cir. 1999) (per curium) (noting that Section 1915A applies to all actions brought by prisoners against governmental officials even when plaintiff paid the filing fee).

Additionally, when reviewing a complaint, a court may also look to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a pleading which sets forth a claim for relief shall contain, inter alia, "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). The purpose of Rule 8 "is to give fair notice of the claim being asserted so as to permit the adverse party the opportunity to file a responsive answer, prepare an adequate defense and...