Thompson v. Library of Congress
Decision Date | 07 July 2021 |
Docket Number | 20-CV-5570 (LTS) |
Parties | ROBERT A. THOMPSON, Plaintiff, v. LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Plaintiff brings this pro se action under the Court's federal question jurisdiction alleging a violation of his constitutional rights. By order dated July 1, 2021, the Court granted Plaintiff's request to proceed without prepayment of fees, that is, in forma pauperis (IFP). The Court dismisses the complaint for the reasons set forth below.
The Court must dismiss an IFP complaint, or portion thereof, that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see Livingston v. Adirondack Beverage Co., 141 F.3d 434, 437 (2d Cir. 1998). The Court must also dismiss a complaint when the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3). While the law mandates dismissal on any of these grounds, the Court is obliged to construe pro se pleadings liberally Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir. 2009), and interpret them to raise the “strongest [claims] that they suggest, ” Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (emphasis in original).
A claim is frivolous when it “lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S 319, 324-25 (1989), abrogated on other grounds by Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007); see also Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992) ( ); Livingston, 141 F.3d at 437 () (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
In this complaint, Plaintiff identifies himself as the “seller ” and the Federal Reserve Bank as the “bonafide purchaser.” (ECF 2 at 8.) The complaint includes the following allegations:
(Id. ¶¶ 4-5.)
The other allegations in the complaint are similar to the ones quoted above. Plaintiff seeks $250, 000 in damages and unspecified declaratory relief. (Id. ¶ IV.)
Plaintiff's complaint, when read with the “special solicitude” due pro se pleadings Triestman, 470 F.3d at 474-75, fails to allege any facts suggesting that Plaintiff has a plausible legal claim. Plaintiff has not cited, nor can the Court identify, any legal basis for Plaintiff's claims for declaratory relief and damages against the Library of Congress. Plaintiff names the Library of Congress as the sole defendant, but the complaint contains no allegations against that defendant.[1] Moreover, Plaintiff's factual allegations rise to the level of the irrational. See Denton, 504 U.S. at 33. The Court therefore dismisses Plaintiff's complaint as frivolous because it lacks a basis in law or fact. See Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 324-25; Livingston, 141 F.3d at 437.
District courts generally grant a pro se plaintiff an opportunity to amend a complaint to cure its defects, but leave to amend is not required where it would be futile. See Hill v. Curcione, 657 F.3d 116, 123-24 (2d Cir. 2011); Salahuddin v. Cuomo, 861 F.2d 40, 42 (2d Cir. 1988). Because the defects in Plaintiff's complaint cannot be cured with an amendment, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial