HARTE v. CITY OF NEW YORK EMS PA (2020)

SUMMARY ORDER

Daniel Harte, pro se, sued the City of New York and 36 other defendants, including city officials, hospital workers, and attorneys, under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986. He alleged that a New York City Police Department (“NYPD”) officer falsely arrested him after a bar fight and that an undercover NYPD officer attempted to murder him in a holding cell at the police station. He also alleged that the defendants conspired to cover up this incident and impede his access to justice in connection with a secret government surveillance operation. The district court sua sponte dismissed Harte’s section 1985 and 1986 claims as frivolous and for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)–(ii), reasoning that, even with the liberal reading afforded to pro se pleadings, the complaint was frivolous and contained no cognizable claims against any defendant. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history of the case, and issues on appeal.

This Court reviews de novo a district court’s sua sponte dismissal of a complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Zaleski v. Burns, 606 F.3d 51, 52 (2d Cir. 2010).

The district court must dismiss a complaint filed in forma pauperis if the court determines that the action or appeal “(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). To avoid dismissal, 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, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). A complaint may be dismissed as frivolous when: “(1) the factual contentions are clearly baseless, such as when allegations are the product of delusion or fantasy; or (2) the claim is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory.” Livingston v. Adirondack Beverage Co., 141 F.3d 434, 437 (2d Cir. 1998) (internal quotation marks omitted).

The district court did not err in sua sponte dismissing Harte’s complaint as frivolous and for failure to state a claim under section 1915(e)(2)(B). Even affording his pleading the “special solicitude” given to pro se complaints, Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 475 (2d Cir. 2006), its allegations failed to state any plausible, nonfrivolous section 1983, 1985, or 1986 claims.

We have considered all of Harte’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.