Opinion
13-CV-1468 (JG)
04-01-2013
HENRY C. LATHAM, Plaintiff, v. JOHN, Defendant.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
JOHN GLEESON, United States District Judge:
Pro se plaintiff Henry C. Latham filed this action on March 18, 2013. I grant his request to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 solely for the purpose of this Order. Because I am unable to determine what claim he is advancing, I dismiss the complaint without prejudice.
A. Discussion
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), a district court shall dismiss an in forma pauperis action if it determines that the action "(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." A pro se complaint, however, "must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)) (internal quotation marks omitted), and this Court must liberally construe a pro se plaintiff's pleadings and interpret his complaint to raise the strongest arguments it suggests. McPherson v. Coombe, 174 F.3d 276, 280 (2d Cir. 1999).
Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a complaint "shall contain . . . a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Although courts must give pro se pleadings a liberal construction, "the basic requirements of Rule 8 apply to self-represented and counseled plaintiffs alike." Wynder v. McMahon, 360 F.3d 73, 79, n.11 (2d Cir. 2004).
Construing Latham's complaint liberally, I find that it fails under Rule 8 because it is illegible and unintelligible. Dismissal for non-compliance with Rule 8 is appropriate where, as here, the complaint is "so confused . . . [or] otherwise unintelligible that its true substance, if any, is well disguised." Salahuddin v. Cuomo, 861 F.2d 40, 42 (2d Cir. 1988) (citation omitted); see also Iwachiw v. New York State Dep't of Motor Vehicles, 396 F.3d 525, 527-28 (2d Cir. 2005) (affirming dismissal of a pro se complaint because unintelligible).
Latham has numerous other incomprehensible complaints in this court. See Latham v. Saint Mary Hospital, No 12 Civ. 4692 (dismissed on November 13, 2012); Latham v. Tyson, No. 12 Civ. 4691 (dismissed on November 13, 2012); Latham v. Latham, No. 12 Civ. 4561 (dismissed on September 19, 2012); Latham v. Transit Adjudicate, No. 11 Civ. 4183 (dismissed on October 6, 2011); Latham v. Fitzgerald, No. 11 Civ. 4728 (dismissed on October 6, 2011); Latham v. Father Pat Fitzgerald St. Frances 31 St. NYC, No. 11 Civ. 4386 (dismissed on September 29, 2011); Latham v. Latham, No. 11 Civ. 4582 (dismissed on September 29, 2011); Latham v. Latham, No. 11 Civ. 4219 (dismissed on September 1, 2011); Latham v. 29 Gallatin Place Brooklyn, No. 11 Civ. 2726 (dismissed on June 13, 2011); Latham v. 800 Poly Place, No. 10 Civ. 5697 (dismissed on December 17, 2010); Latham v. Latham, No. 10 Civ. 3915 (dismissed on December 14, 2010); Latham v. John, No. 10 Civ. 3445 (dismissed on August 26, 2010); Latham v. N.Y. Harbor, No. 10 Civ. 2768 (dismissed on August 26, 2010); Latham v. Transit Auth. Civil Gov't, No. 10 Civ. 2047 (dismissed on July 26, 2010); Latham v. John, No. 09 Civ. 3398 (dismissed on August 20, 2009); Latham v. Transit Auth. Civil, No. 09 Civ. 1009 (dismissed on July 16, 2009); Latham v. Civil Gov't Transit Bldg., No. 08 Civ. 2522 (dismissed on July 17, 2008); Latham v. VA Outpatient Hosp., No. 06 Civ. 6758 (dismissed on January 11, 2007); Latham v. Kingsboro Psychiatric Ctr., No. 06 Civ. 1140 (dismissed on April 10, 2006); Latham v. N.Y. Psychotherapy, No. 04 Civ. 2945 (dismissed on September 3, 2004); Latham v. Iappil, No. 02 Civ. 2523 (dismissed on June 27, 2002).
B. Conclusion
The complaint is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). In forma pauperis status is denied for purpose of an appeal because any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).
So ordered.
John Gleeson, U.S.D.J. Dated: April 1, 2013
Brooklyn, New York