-
16-587-cv Mendes Da Costa v. Marcucilli UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT=S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION ASUMMARY ORDER@). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. 1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 2 held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of 3 New York, on the 10th day of January, two thousand seventeen. 4 5 PRESENT: 6 DENNIS JACOBS, 7 ROBERT D. SACK, 8 SUSAN L. CARNEY, 9 Circuit Judges. 10 _____________________________________ 11 12 Jose Antonio Mendes Da Costa, 13 14 Plaintiff-Appellant, 15 16 v. 16-587 17 18 Sergeant Marcucilli, Mount Vernon Police 19 Department, Officer Johnny Camacho, Mount 20 Vernon Police Department, Detective Michael 21 Martins, Eastchester Police Department, Officer 22 Jesus Garcia, Mount Vernon Police Department, 23 Private Investigator Michael V. Lentini, Mount 24 Vernon Law Department, Pedro Coelho, Cecilia 25 Rodrigues, Hina Sherwani, Mount Vernon Law 26 Department, Fernando Marques, Moacir Castro, 27 28 Defendants-Appellees. 29 30 _____________________________________ 31 32 1 FOR PLAINTIFF -APPELLANT: Jose Antonio Mendes Da Costa, pro se, 2 Mount Vernon, NY. 3 4 FOR SERGEANT MARCUCILLI, Tichina La’Toya Johnson, Assistant 5 JOHNNY CAMACHO, JESUS Corporation Counsel, City of Mount 6 GARCIA, MICHAEL LENTINI Vernon, Mount Vernon, NY. 7 AND HINA SHERWANI : 8 9 FOR MICHAEL MARTINS: No appearance. 10 11 FOR FERNANDO MARQUES, MOACIR, Cliffith Bennette, Bedford Corners, NY. 12 CASTRO, AND PEDRO COEHLO: 13 14 FOR CECILIA RODRIGUES: Cecilia Rodrigues, pro se, Mount Vernon, 15 NY. 16 17 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of 18 New York (Seibel, J.). 19 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND 20 DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 21 Appellant Jose Mendes Da Costa, pro se, sued for false arrest, malicious prosecution, and 22 abuse of process under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He appeals the sua sponte dismissal of his amended 23 complaint for failure to follow Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. We assume the parties’ 24 familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal. 25 We review de novo the sua sponte dismissal of a complaint. McEachin v. McGuinnis, 357
26 F.3d 197, 200 (2d Cir. 2004). Pro se submissions are reviewed with “special solicitude,” and 27 “must be construed liberally and interpreted to raise the strongest arguments that they suggest.” 28 Triestman v. Federal Bureau of Prisons,
470 F.3d 471, 474-75 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation 29 marks, citation, and emphasis omitted). 30 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 requires that a pleading “contain . . . a short and plain 31 statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). 1 Dismissal for failure to follow Rule 8 “is usually reserved for those cases in which the complaint is 2 so confused, ambiguous, vague, or otherwise unintelligible that its true substance, if any, is well 3 disguised.” Salahuddin v. Cuomo,
861 F.2d 40, 42 (2d Cir. 1988). A complaint that is overly 4 detailed but comprehensible does not merit dismissal with prejudice.
Id. at 43.5 The amended complaint, nearly 50 pages long, with hundreds of pages of exhibits, is 6 convoluted and repetitive. While it contains some factual allegations concerning Mendes Da 7 Costa’s various arrests, it is virtually impossible to link the various defendants to Mendes Da 8 Costa’s alleged injuries. Moreover, Mendes Da Costa discusses non-defendants and other events 9 without explaining how they are involved with the alleged conspiracy. The district court properly 10 dismissed the amended complaint as frivolous and running afoul of Rule 8. See Salahuddin,
861 11 F.2d at 42; Prezzi v. Schelter,
469 F.2d 691, 692 (2d Cir. 1972) (per curiam) (final dismissal 12 appropriate for complaint that was a “labyrinthian prolixity”). 13 We have considered all of Mendes Da Costa’s arguments and find them to be without 14 merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court. 15 FOR THE COURT: 16 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 3
Document Info
Docket Number: 16-587-cv
Judges: Jacobs, Sack, Carney
Filed Date: 1/10/2017
Precedential Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 3/2/2024