Brodsky v. Brodsky, 2:17-cv-06032

Pro se plaintiff Jay B. Brodsky filed six voluminous in forma pauperis complaints between Oct–Dec 2017 challenging prior state-court matters: distribution of his father’s estate and his 1990 divorce/child-support proceedings.
Complaints totaled ~1,600 pages (pleadings plus exhibits) and included demands for criminal prosecutions and millions in civil relief.
Court granted Brodsky leave to proceed IFP and consolidated all actions into the first-filed docket, 17-CV-6031, closing the other dockets.
The complaints were long, repetitive, frequently incoherent, and included conclusory statements, Latin phrases, medical citations, and requests that private parties be prosecuted criminally.
District court reviewed the filings under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and found they failed to state plausible claims or provide fair notice to defendants.
Court dismissed the consolidated complaints with prejudice under § 1915(e)(2)(B), granted leave to file a single amended complaint within 30 days (subject to Rule 11), and certified any appeal would not be taken in good faith for IFP appeal purposes.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether IFP status should be granted	Brodsky submitted affidavits showing inability to pay	No opposition noted	Granted; Brodsky qualified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1)
Whether cases should be consolidated	Multiple suits arise from same state-court matters	Consolidation appropriate to avoid duplicative litigation	Court consolidated all actions into the first-filed docket under Fed. R. Civ. P. 42
Whether complaints must be dismissed under § 1915(e)(2)(B) as frivolous or for failure to state a claim	Brodsky alleges state-court irregularities, seeks criminal prosecutions and civil relief	Complaints are prolix, incoherent, seek private criminal prosecutions (not permitted), and fail Rule 8 notice pleading	Dismissed with prejudice under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(ii) for failure to state a plausible claim
Whether leave to amend should be permitted	Implied request by IFP filing and pro se status	Court may deny amendment if complaint is incomprehensible, but may give one chance	Court granted leave to file a single amended complaint in 30 days, subject to Rule 11; warned of sanctions and possible filing injunction

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (establishes the plausibility pleading standard)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (clarifies Twombly; legal conclusions not entitled to factual assumption)
Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant, 537 F.3d 185 (2d Cir. 2008) (pro se pleadings must be liberally construed)
McEachin v. McGuinnis, 357 F.3d 197 (2d Cir. 2004) (same; construing pro se complaints)
Johnson v. Celotex Corp., 899 F.2d 1281 (2d Cir. 1990) (discusses consolidation and first-filed doctrine)
Prezzi v. Schelter, 469 F.2d 691 (2d Cir.) (affirming dismissal of prolix complaint for noncompliance with Rule 8)