Giselle Beck-Green and Tanya Porter, Plaintiffsv.The Town of Fine, New York; the Town Board of Fine, New York; Herb Snider, in his individual capacity and in his capacity as Code Enforcement Officer of the Town of Fine, New York; Kathryn Boice; Bruce Holliday; and Donna Lawrence, Defendants
REPORT-RECOMMENDATION and ORDER The Clerk has sent for review a civil Complaint filed by Plaintiffs Giselle Beck-Green and Tanya Porter. Dkt. No. 1, Compl. Plaintiffs have not paid the filing fee, but instead submitted Motions to Proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). Dkt. Nos. 2 & 3. By separate Order, this Court granted Plaintiffs’ Applications to Proceed IFP. Now, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §1915(e), the Court will sua sponte review the sufficiency of the Complaint.I. DISCUSSIONA. Pleading RequirementsSection 1915(e) of Title 28 of the United States Code directs that, when a plaintiff seeks to proceed in forma pauperis, “the court shall dismiss the case at any time 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). Thus, it is a court’s responsibility to determine that a plaintiff may properly maintain his complaint before permitting him to proceed further with his action.Under this standard, a court should not dismiss a complaint if the plaintiff has stated “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Although the court should construe the factual allegations in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, “the tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions.” Id. “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). “[W]here the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged — but it has not ‘show[n]‘ — ‘that the pleader is entitled to relief.’” Id. at 679 (quoting FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2)). A pleading that only “tenders naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement” will not suffice. Id. at 678 (further citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, for the proposition that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 “demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation”). Allegations that “are so vague as to fail to give the defendants adequate notice of the claims against them” are subject to dismissal. Sheehy v. Brown, 335 Fed. Appx. 102, 104 (2d Cir. 2009).B. Allegations Contained in Plaintiffs’ ComplaintAlthough the particular facts differ slightly for each Plaintiff, the Complaint alleges generally similar circumstances. Stated broadly, the Complaint contends that each Plaintiff held a possessory interest in property in the Town of Fine, New York, each property was cited for various code violations by Defendant Snider, and Plaintiffs were then ordered on relatively short notice to vacate the premises. Each Plaintiff alleges that they were given insufficient time to collect and move all of their belongings and that Defendants proceeded to discard or destroy what was left behind. Plaintiffs allege that state and/or local laws required that they be provided certain notices and/or the opportunity for a hearing before their eviction, but that these procedural protections were not given to them. See generally Compl. at
