Hays v. City of New York et al
| Nadine Hays |
| City of New York, Dennis Byrnes, Kino Cox, Rick Lee and Does 1-10 |
| 1:2014cv10126 |
| December 16, 2014 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| XX Out of State |
| Jesse M. Furman |
| Other Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
58
OPINION AND ORDER re: 43 SECOND MOTION to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b). filed by Rick Lee, Dennis Byrnes, Kino Cox, City of New York. If the sheer quantity of a plaintiff's claims could be sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss, Hays's Complaint would surely live to see another day. But even construing her pleadings liberally, her twenty some-odd claims fall well short of meeting the plausibility standard. Accordingly, and for the reasons stated a bove, Defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED, and the Complaint is DISMISSED in its entirety. The only remaining question is whether Hays should be granted leave to amend her Complaint. Although leave to amend a complaint should be freely g iven "when justice so requires," Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2), and courts should generally grant pro se plaintiffs leave to amend "at least once when a liberal reading of the complaint gives any indication that a valid claim might be state d," Gomez v. USAA Fed. Sav. Bank, 171 F.3d 794, 795 (2d Cir. 1999) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks omitted), it is "within the sound discretion of the district court to grant or deny leave to amend," McCarthy v. Dun & Bradstr eet Corp., 482 F.3d 184, 200 (2d Cir. 2007). Exercising that discretion here, the Court declines to grant Hays leave to amend the Complaint sua sponte. First, a district court may deny leave to amend when, as here, amendment would be futile becau se the problems with a plaintiff's claims are "substantive" and "better pleading will not cure" them. Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99, 112 (2d Cir. 2000). Second, Hays was already granted leave to amend her complaint to cur e deficiencies raised in Defendants' first motion to dismiss and was explicitly cautioned that she "w[ould] not be given any further opportunity to amend the complaint to address issues raised by the motion to dismiss." (Docket No. 28). Finally, she "has not requested permission to file a Second Amended Complaint, nor has [s]he given any indication that [s]he is in possession of facts that would cure the problems" identified in the instant motion to dismiss. Clark v. Kitt, No. 12-CV-8061 (CS), 2014 WL 4054284, at *15 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 15, 2014). This Court certifies, pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 1915(a)(3), that any appeal from this Memorandum Opinion and Order would not be taken in good faith, and in forma pauperis status is thus denied. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate Docket No. 43 and to close the case. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 2/28/2017) (kgo)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the New York Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
