Orzelek v. Camp
3:17-cv-01153
N.D.N.Y.Nov 28, 2017Background
- Pro se plaintiff Fritz J. Orzelek filed suit (Oct. 2017) naming his sister Elizabeth M. Camp, Broome County Family Court, and U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions; complaint references the First Amendment but contains almost no factual allegations.
- Attached to the complaint is a Family Court petition by Camp alleging sexual molestation, harassment, and stalking by Orzelek.
- Orzelek sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP); the magistrate judge reviewed the IFP application and complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).
- The court found Orzelek qualifies for IFP and granted that application.
- The court concluded the complaint is unintelligible and fails to state a cognizable claim under Rule 8 and § 1915(e), and recommended dismissal.
- Because Orzelek is pro se and it was unclear whether amendment could cure defects, the court recommended dismissal with leave to amend (limited opportunity to replead with specific pleading instructions).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| IFP eligibility | Orzelek supplied financial affidavit showing inability to pay filing fee | No opposing filings on IFP presented | IFP granted — plaintiff meets financial criteria |
| Sufficiency of complaint under § 1915(e) and Rule 8 | Complaint invokes First Amendment and claims Family Court petition abridges his free speech and equal protection rights | Complaint lacks factual allegations tying defendants to constitutional deprivation; claims are conclusory and unintelligible | Complaint fails to state a claim and is subject to dismissal under § 1915(e) |
| Leave to amend | Plaintiff (pro se) should be given chance to clarify and plead specific facts | Court recognizes futile amendments need not be permitted but cannot determine futility here | Dismissal recommended with leave to replead; magistrate provides instructions on required factual allegations and § 1983 pleading elements |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Coughlin, 700 F.2d 37 (2d Cir. 1983) (caution in sua sponte dismissal of pro se complaints)
- Fitzgerald v. First East Seventh St. Tenants Corp., 221 F.3d 362 (2d Cir. 2000) (district court may sua sponte dismiss frivolous complaints)
- Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (U.S. 1989) (dismissal proper when claims lack arguable basis in law or fact)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading must state a claim that is plausible on its face)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (legal conclusions not entitled to assumed truth; threadbare recitals insufficient)
- Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99 (2d Cir. 2000) (leave to amend not required where substantive defects cannot be cured)
- Barr v. Abrams, 810 F.2d 358 (2d Cir. 1987) (civil-rights complaints must include specific factual allegations rather than general conclusions)