ORDER and REPORT-RECOMMENDATION The Clerk has sent to the court for review a complaint purportedly brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983, filed by plaintiff Kevin Byng. (Dkt. No. 1) (“Compl.”). Plaintiff has also moved to proceed in forma pauperis. (Dkt. No. 2). I. IFP Application Plaintiff declares in his IFP application that he is unable to pay the filing fee. (Dkt. No. 2). After reviewing his application and supporting documents, this court finds that plaintiff is financially eligible for IFP status. However, in addition to determining whether plaintiff meets the financial criteria to proceed IFP, the court must also consider the sufficiency of the allegations set forth in the complaint in light of 28 U.S.C. §1915, which provides that the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that the action is (i) 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)(i)-(iii). In determining whether an action is frivolous, the court must consider whether the complaint lacks an arguable basis in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989), abrogated on other grounds by Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) and 28 U.S.C. §1915. Dismissal of frivolous actions is appropriate to prevent abuses of court process as well as to discourage the waste of judicial resources. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327; Harkins v. Eldredge, 505 F.2d 802, 804 (8th Cir. 1974). Although the court has a duty to show liberality toward pro se litigants, and must use extreme caution in ordering sua sponte dismissal of a pro se complaint before the adverse party has been served and has had an opportunity to respond, the court still has a responsibility to determine that a claim is not frivolous before permitting a plaintiff to proceed. Fitzgerald v. First E. Seventh St. Tenants Corp., 221 F.3d 362, 363 (2d Cir. 2000) (finding that a district court may dismiss a frivolous complaint sua sponte even when plaintiff has paid the filing fee). To survive dismissal for failure to state a claim, the complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim that is “plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. (citing Bell Atl. Corp., 550 U.S. at 555). In addition, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) requires that a pleading contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Although Rule 8 does not require detailed factual allegations, it does “demand[] more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Houston v. Collerman, No. 9:16-CV-1009 (BKS/ATB), 2016 WL 6267968, at *2 (N.D.N.Y. Oct. 26, 2016) (quoting Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at 678). A pleading that contains allegations that “‘are so vague as to fail to give the defendants adequate notice of the claims against them’ is subject to dismissal.” Id. (citing Sheehy v. Brown, 335 F. App’x 102, 104 (2d Cir. 2009)). The court will now turn to a consideration of the plaintiff’s complaint under the above standards. II. Complaint1 Plaintiff is a sixty-two year old man “with serious debilitating medical” and mental health issues.2 (Compl. 2). Plaintiff moved into an apartment at Perretta Towers leased through the Utica Municipal Housing Authority3 (“UMHA”) on September 1, 2022. (Id. 10). Defendant Bob Kelly was the Executive Director (“E.D.”) of the UMHA, while defendant Bob Connelly was responsible for security at Perretta Towers. Plaintiff alleges the former occupant of his apartment was a drug dealer who ran a prostitution ring out of the apartment. (Id. 15). Because of the prior occupant’s activities, there were numerous individuals “knocking on [plaintiff's] door at all hours of the night” and threatening him when he didn’t answer the door. (Id. 14). When plaintiff reported these incidents to defendant Connelly, Connelly told plaintiff he was “full of shit” and that he would “get” him. (Id. 15). When plaintiff informed Connelly that unauthorized individuals could gain entry to his building by “pulling hard on the locked security door[,]” Connelly did not address the issue. (Id. 24). Plaintiff later wrote a letter to E.D. Kelly about his safety and health concerns, but never received a response. (Id.
20-21). On several occasions, plaintiff called for security but no one responded. (Id.
