Jones v. Nat. Commun. and Surveillance Networks
| Decision Date | 12 January 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. 05 Civ. 3461(AKH).,05 Civ. 3461(AKH). |
| Citation | 409 F.Supp.2d 456 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
| Parties | Nathaniel JONES, Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL COMMUNICATION AND SURVEILLANCE NETWORKS, State of New York, State of New Jersey, State of Delaware, State of Maryland, State of Virginia, State of North Carolina, State of South Carolina, State of Georgia, John Doe, in his official capacity, Jane Doe, in her official capacity, New York Police Department, New York City Sheriff's Department, New York Fire Department, City of New York, City of Mt. Vernon, Mt. Vernon Police Department, Mt. Vernon Fire Department, Mt. Vernon Board of Education, Willie McCray, in his official capacity, M.H. Dudley, individually, Thomas Monroe Turner, in his official capacity, Thomas Monroe Turner, individually, Kirk Sookdeeo, individually, Larry Barnes, in his individual capacity, Larry Barnes, individually, Met Food, Western Beef, Shoprite, Fox Five News, Gerard Joseph, in his official capacity, Gerard Joseph, individually, Raphael Joseph, in his official capacity, Raphael Joseph, individually, Carter Brothers, King Teleservices, Ocwen Bank, Nation Banc, Department of Health and Human Services, Center for Disease Control, Federal Contractors, United States Postal Service, Rosicki Rosicki & Associates, Bruce Johnson, in his official capacity, Bruce Johnson, individually, Golden Wexler and Sarnesis, Henry Solly, Patricia Solly, Verizon Communications, Inc., Home Box Office, Defendants. |
Nathaniel Jones, New York, NY, pro se.
Casey Devin Laffey, Sr, Reed Smith (NYC), New York, NY, for National Communication And Surveillance Networks.
Monica Anne Connell, New York State Office of Attorney General, New York, NY, for State of New York.
Aney K. Chandy, Assistant Attorney General, Newark, NJ, Monica Anne Connell, New York State Office of the Attorney General, New York, NY, for State of New Jersey.
Sabrina Melissa Tann, New York City Law Depart. Office of the Corporation Counsel, New York, NY, for New York Police Dept., NYC Sheriff's Dept., Fire Dept. New York.
Hina Sherwani, Helen M. Blackwood, Esq., Corporation Counsel, Mt. Vernon, NY, Nichelle Aniece Johnson, City of Mount Vernon, Dept. of Law, Mount Vernon, NY, for City of Mt. Vernon.
Hina Sherwani, Helen M. Blackwood, Esq., Corporation Counsel, Mt. Vernon, NY, for Mt. Vernon Police Dept., Mt. Vernon Fire Dept.
Lewis R. Silverman, Rutherford & Christie, LLP, New York, NY, for Mt. Vernon Bd. of Ed., Willie MrCray, M.H. Dudley, Thomas Monroe Turner, Kirk Sookdeeo, Larry Barnes.
Richard W. Wedinger, Barry Mctiernan & Moore (NJ), Jersey City, NJ, for Western Beef.
Jason Paul Conti, Hogan & Hartson, L.L.P., New York, NY, Richard Bloom, Hogan & Hartson L.L.P., New York, NY, Slade R. Metcalf, Hogan & Hartson Llp, New York, NY, for Fox Five News.
David O. Wright, Quinn & Assoc., Yorktown Heights, NY, for Gerard Joseph, Raphael Joseph.
George O. Richardson, III, Sullivan & Worcester LLP(NY), New York, NY, for King Teleservices.
Daniel Lucas Cantor, O'melveny & Myers LLP, New York, NY, for Ocwen Bank.
Andrew Brooks Messite, Reed Smith, LLP (PA), Philadelphia, PA, Casey Devin Laffey, Sr, Reed Smith (NYC), New York, NY, for NationBanc.
Kristin Lynn Vassallo, U.S. Attorney'S Office, New York, NY, for DHHS, CDC, U.S. Postal Service.
Owen Michael Robinson, Rosicki, Rosicki & Associates (Carle Pl), Carle Place, NY, for Rossicki Rossicki & Assoc.
Joel Gary Wexler, Golden, Wexler & Sarnese, P.C., Garden City, NY, for Golden Wexler And Sarnesis.
Joseph Serino, JR., Kirkland & Ellis LLP (NYC), New York, NY, Robert Cohen, New York, NY, William H. Pratt, Kirkland & Ellis, New York, NY, for Verizon Communications Inc. William A. Rome, Hoffman and Pollok, New York, NY, for Home Box Office.
ORDER DISMISSING AMENDED COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed his Amended Complaint May 12, 2005, alleging various constitutional violations under Title 42, United States Code, Sections 1981, 1982, 1983, 1985, and 1986. His complaint further alleges ancillary claims of defamation, racketeering, and other torts. He seeks compensatory damages of over $150 million as well as injunctions and protective orders.
Plaintiff's Amended Complaint names the following defendants:1 (1) Department of Health and Human Services, Center for Disease Control, National Communication and Surveillance Networks (a non-existent federal agency), and United States Postal Service (the "Federal Defendants"); (2) State of Delaware, State of New York, State of New Jersey, State of Maryland, State of Virginia, State of North Carolina, State of South Carolina, and State of Georgia (the ); (3) City of New York, New York Police Department, New York City Sheriff's Department, New York Fire Department, City of Mt. Vernon, Mt. Vernon Police Department, and Mt. Vernon Fire Department (the "City Defendants"); (4) Mt. Vernon Board of Education, Willie McCray, Al Goojoin, M.H. Dudley, Thomas Monroe Turner, Kirk Sookdeo, and Larry Barnes (the "Mt. Vernon Board of Education Defendants"); (5) Met Food, Carter Brothers, King Teleservices, Western Beef, Shoprite, Fox Five News, Home Box Office, Verizon Communications, Inc., Rosicki, Rosicki & Associates, Golden, Wexler & Sarnese, Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC (incorrectly named as "Ocwen Bank"), and Nations-Banc (the "private entities"); and (6) John Doe, Jane Doe, Bruce Johnson, Gerard Joseph and Raphael Joseph (the "individual Defendants").
Plaintiff's Amended Complaint arises from events that occurred over the last seven years at and around his places of residence, 2105 Wallace Avenue, Apartment 5G, Bronx, New York, and 774 South Fifth Avenue, Mount Vernon, New York, as well as at or around his places of employment, including Mt. Vernon High School, and at various locations he visited during vacation. To the extent that it can be ascertained, Plaintiff alleges various constitutional violations arising out of a purported conspiracy among the several Defendants to place Plaintiff under surveillance in order to harass and intimidate him in retaliation for his role as counsel in certain legal proceedings. Plaintiff narrates a series of harassing events, allegedly perpetrated by private entities and individuals names as Defendants, that he claims were facilitated by policies adopted by Federal, State, City, and Mt. Vernon Board of Education Defendants. Those policies, he claims, were pursued in furtherance of the Public Health Improvement Act, 42 U.S.C. § 247d-4 (2000). In a haphazard, repetitive narrative of fifty-eight pages, Plaintiff recounts what he believes to have been repeated stalking by neighbors, police officers, HBO van drivers pit bulls, children, and teachers, as well as surveillance of his home, phone, and car, and dissemination of information gathered from such surveillance. Plaintiff concludes that these actions violate his rights under various articles of the Constitution.
Certain defendants — Federal Defendants, State of New York, State of New Jersey, State of Maryland, State of Georgia, City Defendants, Mt. Vernon Board of Education Defendants, Fox Five News, King Teleservices, Ocwen Bank, Nations-Banc, Rosicki, Rosicki & Associates, Verizon Communications Inc., Home Box Office, Gerard Joseph, and Raphael Joseph — have individually moved for dismissal of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint pursuant to Rules 8(a), 9(b), 12(b)(1), and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For the reasons stated below, the Amended Complaint is dismissed as to those Defendants.
Certain defendants — Western Beef, Shoprite, Golden Wexler and Sanesis, Henry Solly, and Patricia Solly — have individually answered Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, but have not filed motions to dismiss. Because these Defendants are similarly situated to Defendants that moved for dismissal of the Amended Complaint, the Amended Complaint is also dismissed as to these Defendants.
Certain defendants — State of Delaware, Met Foods, Carter Brothers, and Bruce Johnson — have not answered the Amended Complaint. For the same reasons, upon application, the Amended Complaint will be dismissed as to those Defendants as well.
Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a complaint to be "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2); see, e.g., Salahuddin v. Cuomo, 861 F.2d 40, 42 (2d Cir.1988). A complaint should be dismissed if it is "so confused, ambiguous, vague, or otherwise unintelligible that its true substance, if any, is well disguised." Salahuddin, 861 F.2d at 42. A mere "litany of vague and conclusory allegations whose relevance to the asserted claims is uncertain" is not a plain statement in compliance with Rule 8. Martin Luther King Jr. H.S. Parents v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 2004 WL 1656598, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. July 23, 2004). For example, a claim that fails to "identify any particular defendant that committed any specific act of wrongdoing" and fails to "reveal the specific relationship, if any, [the] defendants share" is insufficient pleading under Rule 8(a)(2). Appalachian Enters., Inc. v. ePayment Solutions, Ltd., 2004 WL 2813121, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Dec.8, 2004) (). Rule 8 seeks to avoid placing "`an unjustified burden on the court and on the [parties] who must respond to [the complaint] because they are forced to select the relevant material from a mass of verbiage.'" Roberto's Fruit Mkt., Inc. v. Schaffer, 13 F.Supp.2d 390, 395 (E.D.N.Y.1998) (quoting Lonesome v. Lebedeff, 141...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Claude v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:13-cv-00535 (VLB)
.... . . the right . . . to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, [and] give evidence.'" Jones v. Nat'l Commc'n and Surveillance Networks, 409 F. Supp. 2d 456, 471 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 1981(a)), aff'd, 266 F. App'x (2d Cir. 2008). "To state a sufficient claim for reli......
-
World Wrestling Entertainment v. Jakks Pacific
...adequately pled, we evaluate the RICO allegations with respect to each defendant individually."); Jones v. Nat'l Commc'n and Surveillance Networks, 409 F.Supp.2d 456, 473 (S.D.N.Y.2006) ("The duration, frequency, and substance of the purported racketeering activity are measured independentl......
-
Mcknight v. Middleton
...enumerated in the Section 1981 or 1982, e.g., making contracts or the purchase of personal property. Jones v. Nat'l Commc'n & Surveillance Networks, 409 F.Supp.2d 456, 470 (S.D.N.Y.2006); see also Mian v. Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette Sec. Corp., 7 F.3d 1085, 1088 (2d Cir.1993). In order to ......
-
Crabhouse of Douglaston Inc. v. Newsday Inc.
...inconsistency is fatal to plaintiffs' claim in the FAC, just as it was in the prior pleading. See Jones v. Nat'l Commun. & Surveillance Networks, 409 F.Supp.2d 456, 471 (S.D.N.Y.2006) (“[T]he Complaint is not saved by conclusory allegations that are inconsistent with the facts pled, or a co......