Patino Mancia v. Annucci

• Decision Date: 16 May 2022
• Docket Number: 21-CV-06675 EAW
• Parties: MAURICIO ANTONIO PATINO MANCIA, Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER ANTHONY ANNUCCI, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of New York

MAURICIO ANTONIO PATINO MANCIA, Plaintiff,
v.
COMMISSIONER ANTHONY ANNUCCI, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION, Defendants.

No. 21-CV-06675 EAW

United States District Court, W.D. New York

May 16, 2022

ORDER

Elizabeth A. Wolford Chief Judge United States District Judge.

Pro se plaintiff Mauricio Antonio Patino Mancia (“Plaintiff”) was an immigration detainee previously detained at the Buffalo Federal Detention Facility, ^[1] presumably awaiting removal based on a conviction for unlawful re-entry following removal, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1326, entered in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas on or about June 10, 2015. See United States v. Patino-Mancia, 4:13-cr-00396-RAJ-1, (Dkt. 102) (W.D. Tex. June 10, 2015), conviction aff'd, 637 Fed.Appx. 168, 169 (5th Cir. 2016); see also Patino Mancia v. United States, 21-cv-06444 EAW, (Dkt. 3) (W.D.N.Y. July 27, 2021) (“Patino Mancia I”).^[2] He has filed the instant action against Commissioner of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community

1

Supervision (“DOCCS”) Anthony Annucci (“Annucci”) and DOCCS, but he fails to set forth, in any discernable way, the jurisdictional basis of this action or the nature of his claims. (See generally Dkt. 1; Dkt. 5). Plaintiff seeks permission to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. 4; Dkt. 6; Dkt. 9), ^[3] has filed a motion for miscellaneous relief (Dkt. 10), which is a rehashing of the allegations or claims set forth in the amended complaint and is denied, and has filed a motion for default judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55 (Dkt. 11), which is also denied.

The amended complaint consists of 31 type-written and handwritten pages and is largely incomprehensible. It is comprised of several separately named documents, including “PETITION OF ACCEPTANCE” “CORAM VOBIS BILL OF COLLECTION OR LAWSUIT[, ]” “BILL OF COLLECTION[, ]” “CORAM VOBIS AFFIDAVIT OF TRUTH[, ]” “MOTION OF LAWSUIT AMENDED[, ]” and “KNOWLEDGEMENT [sic] OF THE LAWSUIT BY THE JUDGE MCLOUGHLIN[.]” (Dkt. 5 at 3, 6, 7-8, 9-13, 16, 29). The amended complaint reflects beliefs consistent with the sovereign citizen movement^[4] and appears to be an attempt to file a lien or collect a debt against various government

2

officials, including Annucci and state and federal judges involved in Plaintiff's state and federal incarceration and detention and his eventual parole release from DOCCS to the United States Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) for removal based on his federal conviction. (Dkt. 5). Upon review of the amended complaint, the Court determines that the amended complaint fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted and is wholly frivolous.

At one point, the “CORAM VOBIS AFFIDAVIT OF TRUTH” document refers to both Plaintiff's state and federal convictions and asserts that his convictions or trials were not fair, but it is framed in language suggesting sovereign citizen beliefs or seeking to impose abusive and meritless liens on judges under the Uniform Commercial Code (“UCC”) reminiscent of a vexatious and abusive practice of prisoners across the country filing fraudulent and abusive liens under the UCC against government officials involved in the prisoner's conviction and incarceration in an effort to harass these officials and to seek to undermine the process afforded to them.^[5] (See, e.g., Dkt. 5 at 11 (“Proof of Claim, that the Jury in the Federal Trial were Federal subjects as the law command [sic] and no free people from Texas....”)).

3

For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff is granted permission to proceed in forma pauperis, but this action is dismissed with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) as frivolous.

DISCUSSION

Because Plaintiff has met the statutory requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), ^[6] he is granted permission to proceed in forma pauperis. Therefore, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court must screen the amended complaint.

I. Legal Standard

Section 1915(e)(2)(B) provides that the Court shall dismiss a case in which in forma pauperis status has been granted if, at any time, the Court determines that the action (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. Section 1915 “provide[s] an efficient means by which a court can screen for and dismiss legally insufficient claims.” Abbas v. Dixon, 480 F.3d 636, 639 (2d Cir. 2007) (citing Shakur v. Selsky, 391 F.3d 106, 112 (2d Cir. 2004)). Generally, the Court will afford a Pro se plaintiff an opportunity to amend or to be heard prior to dismissal “unless the court can rule out any possibility, however unlikely it might be, that an amended complaint would succeed in stating a claim.” Abbas, 480 F.3d at 639 (citation and quotation marks omitted). But leave to amend pleadings may be denied when any amendment would be futile. See Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99, 112 (2d Cir. 2000).

4

In evaluating a complaint, the Court must accept all factual allegations as true and must draw all inferences in the plaintiff's favor. See Larkin v. Savage, 318 F.3d 138, 139 (2d Cir. 2003) (per curiam); King v. Simpson, 189 F.3d 284, 287 (2d Cir. 1999). “Specific facts are not necessary, ” and the plaintiff “need only ‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.'” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Boykin v. Keycorp, 521 F.3d 202, 216 (2d Cir. 2008) (discussing pleading standard in Pro se cases after Twombly: “even after Twombly, dismissal of a Pro se claim as insufficiently pleaded is appropriate only in the most unsustainable of cases.”). Although “a court is obliged to construe [Pro se] pleadings liberally, particularly when they allege civil rights violations, ” McEachin v. McGuinnis, 357 F.3d 197, 200 (2d Cir. 2004), even pleadings submitted Pro se must meet the notice requirements of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Wynder v. McMahon, 360 F.3d 73, 79 n.11 (2d Cir. 2004).

II. The Amended Complaint

As noted above, the amended complaint...