MAGALY E. HERIVEAUX v. FEMA
15-CV-2326 (ENV)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
May 10, 2015
VITALIANO, United States District Judge
FILED IN CLERK‘S OFFICE U.S. DISTRICT COURT E.D.N.Y. MAY 18 2015 BROOKLYN OFFICE
Plaintiff Magaly E. Heriveaux, filed this pro se action on April 21, 2015. On April 30, 2015, plaintiff filed an “Affidavit/Affirmation,” which the Court liberally construes as an amended complaint. The Court grants plaintiff‘s request to proceed in forma pauperis, pursuant to
Background
Plaintiff‘s complaint and amended complaint are objectively nonsensical and do not present any plausible claim.1 Plaintiff seeks
the withdrawal of individuals (i.e. workers, patrons, ect [sic]) from the portal, in order to discontinue any further security breaches. . . . I am requesting for the portal to shut down, since there are ongoing threats, acts of mental cruelty, obstructions, inducement and other civil and federal violations, which needs to be addressed.
Amend. Compl. at 1. Plaintiff is also
requesting $5,000,000, an encrypted e-mail be sent to all of the departments, the implementation and enforcement of my provisions, a ban/restrictions on all security breaches in the portal and solitary confinement for the individual responsible for my wrongful death.
Id. at 3. Additionally, plaintiff is
requesting that if there are any churches involved, such as the Mennonites, Jehovah Witness or any other dominations [sic] involved, I would like their assistance to have these illegal activities discontinue, to diminish any legal risks. These denominations and several others have come to my attention, from the individuals in the portal.
Id. at 4.
Discussion
Pro se complaints are held to less stringent standards than pleadings drafted by attorneys and courts are required to read them liberally and interpret them as raising the strongest arguments they suggest. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007); Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant #1, 537 F.3d 185, 191-93 (2d Cir. 2008). Moreover, at the pleadings stage of the litigation trial, the court must assume the truth of “all well-pleaded, nonconclusory
Though, presumably, meaningful to her, Heriveaux‘s claims are objectively inconceivable and can be dismissed as factually frivolous. “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.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992); Samuel v. Bloomberg, No. 13 Civ. 6027, 2013 WL 5887545, at * 1 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 31, 2013). The allegations here--even under the very liberal reading that must be accorded pro se pleadings (and even if plaintiff believes them to be true)--can only be described as “fanciful,” “fantastic,” and “delusional.” See Denton, 504 U.S. at 33. Since the statements set forth in plaintiff‘s complaint and amended complaint are devoid of any basis in law or fact, defects which cannot be cured by another amendment, this frivolous action is dismissed. Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99, 112 (2d Cir. 2000).
Accordingly, the action is dismissed as frivolous pursuant to
The Court certifies pursuant to
The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment for defendant and to close this case.
So Ordered.
ERIC N. VITALIANO
United States District Court
s/Eric N. Vitaliano
Dated: Brooklyn, New York
May 10, 2015