Corrado v. N.Y. Univ. Stony Brook Police

• Decision Date: 05 August 2016
• Docket Number: 15-CV-7444(SJF)(AYS),15-CV-7443(SJF)(AYS)
• Parties: CHRISTOPHER CORRADO, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF NEW YORK UNIVERSITY STONY BROOK POLICE, OFFICER JOHN DOE 1, OFFICER JOHN DOE 2, OFFICER JOHN DOE 3, STATE OF NEW YORK UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL, SAMUEL L. STANLEY, Individually, REUVEN PASTERNICK, Individually, Defendants. CHRISTOPHER CORRADO, Plaintiff, v. SUFFOLK COUNTY POLICE, OFFICER JOHN DOE 1, OFFICER JOHN DOE 2, LIEUTENANT JANE DOE 1, LIEUTENENT JOHN DOE 2, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York

CHRISTOPHER CORRADO, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF NEW YORK UNIVERSITY STONY BROOK POLICE,

OFFICER JOHN DOE 1, OFFICER JOHN DOE 2, OFFICER JOHN DOE 3,

STATE OF NEW YORK UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL, SAMUEL L. STANLEY,

Individually, REUVEN PASTERNICK, Individually, Defendants.

CHRISTOPHER CORRADO, Plaintiff, v. SUFFOLK COUNTY POLICE, OFFICER JOHN DOE 1, OFFICER JOHN DOE 2,LIEUTENANT JANE DOE 1, LIEUTENENT JOHN DOE 2, Defendants.

15-CV-7443(SJF)(AYS)

15-CV-7444(SJF)(AYS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

August 5, 2016

ORDER

FEUERSTEIN, District Judge:

On December 28, 2015, pro se plaintiffChristopher Corrado("Plaintiff") filed two (2) complaints in this Court, each purporting to assert a variety of federal constitutional and statutory claims, each relating to a mid-April 2015 arrest and subsequent state courtprosecution, and each accompanied by an in forma pauperis application.The complaint assigned docket number 15-cv-7443("Corrado I") is against the State of New York University Stony Brook Police("SBUPD"), John Doe Officers 1-3 ("Unknown SBU Officers"), the State of New York University Hospital("SBU Hospital"), Samuel L. Stanley("Stanley") in his individual capacity, and Reuven Pasternick("Pasternick") in his individual capacity (collectively, the "Corrado I Defendants").The complaint assigned docket number 15-cv-7444("Corrado II") is against the Suffolk County Police("SCPD"), John Doe Officers 1-2 ("Unknown SCPD Officers"), and Jane and John Doe Lieutenants 1-2 ("Unknown SCPD Lieutenants")(collectively, the "Corrado II Defendants").Despite the fact that nothing filed on the docket suggests that the Corrado I Defendants were served with a complaint, on February 16, 2016 the Office of the New York State Attorney General, having appeared on behalf of the Corrado I Defendants, filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Corrado I complaint.(Dkt. 7).For the following reasons, Plaintiff's applications to proceed in forma pauperis are granted, but both the Corrado I and II complaints are dismissed sua sponte pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)-(iii), and the Corrado I Defendants' motion to dismiss is denied as moot.

I.BACKGROUND

A.Plaintiff's History of Vexatious Litigation

Since August 2015, in addition to the instant Corrado I and II complaints, Plaintiff has attempted to remove two (2)state court actions to this Court, both of which were remanded, and has filed five (5)pro se, in forma pauperis complaints in this Court, each of which has been dismissed:

• Unknown Stony Brook University Police v. Corrado, 15-cv-4843 (SJF)(AYS)(pending criminal case remanded to state court following Plaintiff's filing of notice of removal);

• D'Amico v. Corrado, 15-cv-4846 (SJF)(AYS)(pending child support dispute remanded to state family court following Plaintiff's filing of notice of removal);

• Corrado v. Judge Freundlich, 15-cv-5389 (SJF)(AYS)(complaint against state family court judge alleging various constitutional violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983dismissed);

• Corrado v. Magistrate Lafler, 15-cv-5390 (SJF)(AYS)(complaint against state family court judge alleging various constitutional violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983dismissed); • Corrado v. New York Rising et al., 15-cv-6284 (JFB)(AYS)(complaint against twelve (12) private, state, and federal actors alleging a variety of constitutional and statutory violations with respect to Plaintiff's purported entitlement to compensation related to alleged losses sustained as a result of Hurricane Sandy dismissed);

• Corrado v. Bernard Cheng, 15-cv-7221 (SJF)(AYS)(complaint against state family court judge alleging various constitutional violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983dismissed); and

• Corrado v. New York Office of Temporary Disability Assistance et al., 15-cv-7316 (SJF)(AYS)(complaint against twenty-four (24) state actors alleging a variety of constitutional and statutory violations in connection with child support dispute pending in state family court dismissed).

In each instance, Plaintiff has sought reconsideration of the Court's orders dismissing his complaint or remanding the case.He has also unsuccessfully appealed this Court's orders remanding his pending criminal and child support cases to their respective state courts.

B.Plaintiff's Present Complaints

Plaintiff's Corrado I and Corrado II complaints appear to arise out of a 2015 arrest and ensuing state criminal prosecution pending in New York State Court, Suffolk County, First District Court, bearing the index number 2015SU016208 - the same state criminal prosecutionhe improperly attempted to remove to this Court.

1.Corrado I

The Corrado I complaint alleges that the Corrado I Defendants"acted in complete absence of all jurisdiction, laws, rules and authority stemming from an illegal encounter, police brutality, detainment, imprisonment, with said police on or about April 16, 2015 while a patient against [Plaintiff's] will, being falsely imprisoned at Stony Brook Hospital."(Dkt. 1at 1-2).The fifteen (15)-page complaint consists almost entirely of citations to and/or excerpts from various federal statutes, constitutional provisions, cases, and international treaties; it provides the reader with no information about the nature of the underlying conduct that Plaintiff is/was purportedly aggrieved by.(Dkt. 1, passim).Although Plaintiff failed to describe any acts or omissions in his complaint, let alone acts or omissions attributable to any of the named defendants, he purports to assert claims under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a),18 U.S.C. §§ 242,245,1514,2381and2382, and42U.S.C. §§ 1983and12203, and seeks expungement of "all invasive privacy records" and damages in the amount of ten million dollars ($10,000,000) from each of the Corrado I Defendants.(Dkt. 1at 1, 13).

On February 16, 2016, Corrado I Defendants filed an unopposed motion to dismiss the complaint.(Docket EntryNos. 6, 7, 9).On March 14, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment, which was denied without prejudice for failure to comply with Rule 4 of this Court's individual rules (i.e., the "bundle rule").(Dkt. 8;3/22/2016 ECF Order).

2.Corrado II

The Corrado II complaint alleges that the Corrado II Defendants"acted in complete absence of all jurisdiction and authority stemming from an illegal encounter, detainment, [and] imprisonment with said police on private property on or about April 15, 2015."(Dkt. 1at 1).Plaintiff purports to challenge the "unlawful malicious prosecution, investigation, detainment, and incarceration of [Plaintiff] without probable cause or lawful reason to do so."(Dkt. 1at 2).As in Corrado I, Plaintiff's Corrado II complaint consists almost entirely of legal conclusions and references to federal statutes, constitutional provisions, and cases.(Dkt. 1, passim).It provides no information as to who acted or failed to act, when they acted or failed to act, or how Plaintiff was harmed by anyone's action(s) or inaction(s).(Id.).Plaintiff's Corrado II complaint cites each of the statutes cited in the Corrado I complaint, and also 15 U.S.C. §§ 1673and1675.(Dkt. 1at 1).Similarly, Plaintiff seeks relief in the form of expungement of "all invasive privacy records" and damages in the amount of two million dollars ($2,000,000) from each of the Corrado II defendants.(Dkt. 1at 9).

II.DISCUSSION

A.In Forma Pauperis

Having reviewed Plaintiff's declarations in support of his applications to proceed in forma pauperis in both Corrado I and II, the Court finds that Plaintiff's financial status qualifies him to commence these actions without prepayment of the filing fees.See28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1).Accordingly, Plaintiff's requests to proceed in forma pauperis are granted.

B.Standard of Review

Under the in forma pauperisstatute, a district court must dismiss a complaint if it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.See28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B);see alsoAbbas v. Dixon, 480 F.3d 636, 639(2d Cir.2007).

Courts must read pro se complaints liberally, and construe them "to raise the strongest arguments that they suggest."Fowlkes v. Ironworkers Local 40, 790 F.3d 378, 387(2d Cir.2015)(quotations and citations omitted);see alsoGerstenbluth v. Credit Suisse Sec. (USA) LLC, 728 F.3d 139, 142-43(2d Cir.2013).The Court must also assume "all well-pleaded, nonconclusory factual allegations in the complaint to be true."Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 621 F.3d 111, 124(2d Cir.2010), aff'd, 133 S. Ct. 1659(2013)(citingAshcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677-78(2009)).

Nevertheless, in order to avoid dismissal, a complaint must, at a minimum, comply with Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires, inter alia, "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief."Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).A complaint must "give the defendant fair notice of what the ... claim is and the grounds upon which it rests."Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555(2007).Moreover, a complaint must plead sufficient facts to "state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face."Id. at 570."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)(citations omitted).The plausibility standard "does not require detailed factual allegations," but it does "demand[ ] more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation."Id.

C.Plaintiff's Claims

1. 18 U.S.C. §§ 242,245,1514,2381, and2382

Plaintiff purports to assert claims against all defendants under sections 242,245,1514,2381, and2382 of Title 18 of the United States Code.However, there is no private right of action under any of these federal criminal statutes.Hill v. Didio, ...