DECISION AND ORDER Pro se plaintiff Carlos Velez is in Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (“DOCCS”) custody at Five Points Correctional Facility. He filed a complaint, seeking relief under this Court’s diversity jurisdiction, for violation of his rights when DOCCS disciplined him for drug use while he was confined at Attica Correctional Facility (“Attica”). Dkt. 1. Specifically, Velez seeks relief because the testing equipment Defendants provided to DOCCS produced a false positive result. See id. Velez also requested permission to proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. 2. Defendant Microgenics Corporation appeared and moved to dismiss. Dkt. 4. For the reasons discussed below, Velez’s claims will be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B) — and Microgenics’s motion to dismiss denied as moot — unless Velez files an amended complaint as directed. DISCUSSION Because Velez satisfied the statutory requirements of 28 U.S.C. §1915(a) and filed the required authorization (Dkt. 2), he is granted permission to proceed in forma pauperis. Therefore, under Section 1915(e)(2)(B), this Court must screen Velez’s complaint. Section 1915 “provide [s] an efficient means by which a court can screen for and dismiss legally insufficient claims.” Abbas v. Dixon, 480 F.3d 636, 639 (2d Cir. 2007) (citing Shakur v. Selsky, 391 F.3d 106, 112 (2d Cir. 2004)). The Court shall dismiss a complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity, or an officer or employee of a governmental entity, if the Court determines that the action: (1) fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §§1915A(b)(1)-(2). And the Court shall dismiss the complaint of a civil litigant proceeding pro se if, among other reasons, the complaint “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted.” See 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Generally, the Court will afford a pro se plaintiff an opportunity to amend or to be heard before dismissal “unless the court can rule out any possibility, however unlikely it might be, that an amended complaint would succeed in stating a claim.” Abbas, 480 F.3d at 639 (internal quotations omitted). But leave to amend may be denied when any amendment would be futile. See Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99, 112 (2d Cir. 2000). I. Review of the Complaint. The Court must accept all factual allegations as true and must draw all inferences in Velez’s favor when evaluating the complaint. See Larkin v. Savage, 318 F.3d 138, 139 (2d Cir. 2003) (per curiam); King v. Simpson, 189 F.3d 284, 287 (2d Cir. 1999). “Specific facts are not necessary,” and a plaintiff “need only ‘give the defendant fair notice of what the…claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (internal quotations and citation omitted)); see also Boykin v. Keycorp, 521 F.3d 202, 216 (2d Cir. 2008) (“[E]ven after Twombly, dismissal of a pro se claim as insufficiently pleaded is appropriate only in the most unsustainable of cases.”). A court “is obliged to construe [pro se] pleadings liberally, particularly when they allege civil rights violations,” McEachin v. McGuinnis, 357 F.3d 197, 200 (2d Cir. 2004), but even pro se pleadings must meet the notice requirements of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, see Wynder v. McMahon, 360 F.3d 73, 79 n.11 (2d Cir. 2004). Under these standards, Velez alleges that, while confined at Attica in June 2019, he submitted a urine sample that was tested with the “Indiko Plus urinalysis analyzer.” See Dkt. 1, at 4 20. The urine sample Velez submitted returned a “false positive” for prohibited drug use. See id. As a result, Velez was subjected to thirty days in keeplock, lost attendant privileges, and lost opportunities like preferential transfer to a prison closer to home as disciplinary sanctions. See id. at 1 4; id. at 2
