Summary
This Memorandum and Order from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York dismisses a pro se civil rights complaint filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against two NYPD officers. The court finds the plaintiff's allegations to be factually frivolous, fantastic, and delusional, failing to meet the plausibility standard required by Twombly and Iqbal. Consequently, the action is dismissed without leave to amend, and the court certifies that any appeal would not be taken in good faith.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the plaintiff's pro se complaint satisfies the plausibility pleading standard and therefore survives dismissal under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B).
- Whether the court may deny in forma pauperis status for an appeal of a dismissed action.
Holdings
- The action is dismissed as frivolous because the complaint contains fanciful and delusional allegations that fail to state a plausible claim.
- The court certifies that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and therefore denies in forma pauperis status for the appeal.
Key quotations
“[A] finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible, whether or not there are judicially noticeable facts available to contradict them.” (at 34)
“A complaint must plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).” (at 570)
Factual background
Plaintiff Elias Rodriguez alleged that NYPD officers James Essig and Alberto Lasman had been violating his constitutional rights since June 1991 and engaged in identity and mortgage fraud, but provided no factual details beyond vague accusations.