Jacobs v. Jacobs

• Decision Date: 18 October 2022
• Docket Number: 21-CV-10577 (CS)
• Parties: SAMUEL O. JACOBS, Plaintiff, v. KENT JACOBS, DUTCHESS COUNTY FAMILY COURT and POUGHKEEPSIE, NY, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

SAMUEL O. JACOBS, Plaintiff,
v.
KENT JACOBS, DUTCHESS COUNTY FAMILY COURT and POUGHKEEPSIE, NY, Defendants.

No. 21-CV-10577 (CS)

United States District Court, S.D. New York

October 18, 2022

Samuel O. Jacobs

Jamaica, New York

Pro Se Plaintiff

Kent Jacobs

Hopewell Junction, NY

Pro Se Defendant

Charles F. Sanders

Assistant Attorney General

Office of the Attorney General of the State of New York

New York, New York

Counsel for Defendant Dutchess County Family Court

OPINION & ORDER

CATHY SEIBEL, U.S.D.J.

Before the Court are the motions to dismiss of Defendants Kent Jacobs (“Kent”) and Dutchess County Family Court (“DCFC”). (ECF Nos. 16, 25-26, 28.) For the following reasons, the motions are GRANTED.

I. BACKGROUND

I accept as true the facts, but not the conclusions, set forth in Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, (ECF No. 24 (“AC”)), Initial Complaint, (ECF No. 1 (“IC”)), and opposition

1

submissions, (ECF No. 27 (“P's Opp. 1”); ECF No. 29 (“P's Opp. 2”)).^[1] See Washington v. Westchester Cnty. Dep t of Corr., No. 13-CV-5322, 2015 WL 408941, at *1 n.1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 30, 2015) (court may give pro se plaintiff the benefit of considering facts in original complaint even if they have not been repeated in amended complaint); Braxton v. Nichols, No. 08-CV-8568, 2010 WL 1010001, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 18, 2010) (“[A]llegations made in a pro se plaintiffs memorandum of law, where they are consistent with those in the complaint, may also be considered on a motion to dismiss.”).^[2]

A. Factual Background

Plaintiff Samuel Jacobs (“Samuel”) is an 80-year-old U.S. army veteran. (IC at 7, 17.) In the past, he went to schools, where he “entertain[ed] [the] students and staff with his original storytelling and music.” (AC at 12.)

Plaintiff states that in September of 2014, he began to suspect that his son Kent was having problems and potentially using prescription medications with dangerous side effects. (AC at 9; P's Opp. 2 at 2.) “[A]cting upon [his] paternal instincts,” Samuel called Kent, and when Kent did not return his call, Samuel wrote Kent a letter “clearly stat[ing] that [his] intent was to try and help him.” (P's Opp. 2 at 2.) On September 29, 2014, Kent filed a complaint against Samuel in DCFC.^[3] (IC at 14.) On April 23, 2015, Judge Joseph Egitto of DCFC found

2

that Samuel had committed the family offense of harassment in the second degree and issued an order of protection with a duration of two years. See Jacobs, 27 N.Y.S.3d at 884. The Second Department affirmed, id., and the Court of Appeals denied Samuel's motion for leave to appeal, see Jacobs, 28 N.Y.3d at 901. On December 8, 2017, Judge Egitto extended the order of protection for an additional five years, and on December 19, 2018, the Second Department again affirmed. See Jacobs, 90 N.Y.S.3d at 133.

Samuel had been represented by court-appointed attorney Lawrence Moore before the DCFC but believed Mr. Moore “refused/ignored two (2) letters,” dated September 22, 2017 and September 27, 2017, “directing him to appeal a ruling by Judge Egit[t]o.” (IC at 7; see AC at 10.) After the time to appeal had elapsed, Samuel notified Judge Egitto that he had fired Moore and intended to continue pro se. (IC at 7, 14.) But Judge Egitto allegedly denied Samuel's request. (Id. at 7.) Samuel alleges that Judge Egitto violated his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights because he allowed Kent to proceed pro se but denied Samuel “that same right,” which left him “on trial with no legal defense.” (Id. at 15.)

Samuel claims that Kent committed a criminal act by filing false charges against Samuel. (Id. at 14.) Samuel alleges that Kent accused him of child abuse with the intention that Samuel would be convicted of a felony and not able to teach again. (Id.) Samuel also claims that Judge Egitto “sentenced” him to seven years, (AC at 10), an apparent reference to the two-year order of protection combined with the five-year extension thereof.

On February 27, 2018, Samuel wrote a letter to Judge Egitto regarding an upcoming court appearance that he could not attend. (Id. at 20.) He also alleges he called the court and offered

3

to do a telephone conference but was told that that was not necessary. (Id. at 9.) On or about April 6, 2018, Judge Egitto issued a warrant for Samuel's arrest. (IC at 15-16; AC at 23.)^[4]Samuel alleges he received a phone call from the police telling him about the warrant, but Samuel thought it was mistake and the police then suggested he “contact the court to correct the error.” (AC at 9.) Samuel alleges this “warrant was issued with no valid [p]robable [c]ause,” in violation of his rights under the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. (IC at 15.) Samuel wrote a letter to Judge Egitto on May 4, 2018 - “[o]n advi[c]e from the police” - asking for an explanation, (id. at 15, 17), but claims his letter was ignored. He also allegedly submitted a “Motion to Explain Arrest Warrant” to DCFC, which was delivered on July 30, 2018.^[5] (Id. at 10.) On August 6, 2018, Judge Egitto issued an order stating that he would not consider any motions filed on Samuel's behalf unless they were submitted by counsel. (AC at 16-17.) And on August 8, 2018, the principal court attorney for DCFC wrote to Samuel informing him that his previous “motion to explain arrest warrant” was “being returned to you as it is not a proper motion. There is no authority to make such a motion.” (Id. at 14; IC at 11.) Plaintiff claims, however, that this “motion is still waiting for a decision.” (AC at 9.)

As a result of Defendants' actions, Samuel claims that his ability to walk was severely damaged, as he had to walk twelve blocks to and from the subway and go up and down forty flights of stairs to travel to DCFC. (Id. at 11.) He claims he is no longer able to walk without a walker or a cane. (Id.) He also claims he suffers from stress and anxiety after being on trial for

4

child abuse and being a convicted felon, even though he has not committed any crime. (Id.) Additionally, given (what he believes to be) his felony conviction, he can no longer teach or work with children, and so his “right to work to work was taken away by defendant Kent Jacobs, and the Family Court.” (Id.)

B. Procedural History

On December 8, 2021, Samuel filed a complaint in this Court against Kent, Judge Egitto, DCFC, and the City of Poughkeepsie, New York, alleging violations of the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. (IC at 2, 5-6.) On February 8, 2021, Kent filed his Answer. (ECF No. 13.) On February 11, 2022, Defendants DCFC and Judge Egitto filed a premotion letter in anticipation of their motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 15 (“DCFC Mem.”) at 1.) The Court held a pre-motion conference on March 18, 2022, at which the Court granted Samuel leave to amend his complaint and dismissed the City of Poughkeepsie as a defendant. (Minute Entry dated Mar. 18, 2022.) On April 8, 2022, Samuel filed an Amended Complaint, alleging that Kent, DCFC, and the City of Poughkeepsie violated his Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. (AC at 2, 5-6.)^[6] Because Samuel did not list Judge Egitto as a Defendant in his Amended Complaint, (see id. at 5-6), the Clerk terminated him as a defendant. On the “Defendant Information” page, however, Samuel added the name and contact information of the Assistant Attorney General (“AAG”) representing DCFC. (Id. at 6.)

On April 13, 2022, Defendant DCFC filed a letter, supplementing its February 11, 2022 letter. (ECF No. 25 (“DCFC Mem. 2”).) The Court ordered the Clerk of Court to strike the AAG as a Defendant, finding that Samuel included the AAG's contact information because the

5

AAG represents DCFC, not because he intended to name the AAG as a defendant, and deemed the April 13th letter, and Defendants' previous February 11th letter, to be DCFC's motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 26.) Kent subsequently also filed a motion to dismiss, (ECF No. 28 (“D Jacobs Mem.”)), and Samuel filed separate oppositions to each motion, (P's Opp. 1; P's Opp. 2).

II. LEGAL STANDARDS

A. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)

“To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting 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.” Id. “While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff's obligation to provide the grounds of his entitlement to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (cleaned up). While Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 “marks a notable and generous departure from the hypertechnical, code-pleading regime of a prior era, . . . it does not unlock the doors of discovery for a plaintiff armed with nothing more than conclusions.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79.

In considering whether a complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted, the court “begin[s] by identifying pleadings that, because they are no more than conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth,” and then determines whether the remaining well-pleaded factual allegations, accepted as true, “plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” Id. at 679. Deciding whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief is “a context-specific task that

6

requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.” Id. “[W]here the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged - but it...