Morales v. The Whole Entire New York Police Department
- Laura Swain
- 1:24-cv-04778
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
Morales v. The Whole Entire New York Police Department: Judge Swain dismissed the complaint but allowed 30 days to amend and replead the claims.
Enki Rodriguez, whom the court treated as the sole plaintiff, may file an amended complaint about one incident within 30 days; the numerous named defendants were not subjected to a merits determination in this order.
What happened
In Morales v. The Whole Entire New York Police Department, the court treated Enki Rodriguez as the single plaintiff, despite the caption also naming Elias Morales. Rodriguez, who represented himself, sued more than 60 defendants over alleged events spanning many years, but did not clearly explain the legal basis for the case or how most defendants were involved.
The court dismissed the complaint because it did not provide a short, clear statement showing a right to relief. It also found that the complaint improperly combined unrelated claims against numerous defendants. The court allowed Rodriguez 30 days to file an amended complaint about one incident; other claims must be brought in separate cases.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain directed that the case remain open while Rodriguez has the opportunity to amend. She also declined to consider any state-law claims, denied fee-free status for an appeal, and stated that judgment would be entered if no amended complaint is filed within 30 days.
The detailed version
- Morales v. The Whole Entire New York Police Department · No. 1:24-cv-04778
- Laura Swain
- Oct. 25, 2024
Background
The complaint’s caption listed Elias Morales and “Enki Rodriguez/Morales” as plaintiffs. Because the allegations appeared to concern one person and only Enki Rodriguez signed the complaint and the application to proceed without prepaying filing fees, the court construed the action as brought by Rodriguez alone. Rodriguez proceeded without a lawyer.
Rodriguez named more than 60 defendants, including police officers, people he alleged worked for the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Central Intelligence Agency, a Bronx district attorney, and private individuals. He described alleged events occurring from 1991 through the present, including alleged abduction, physical and sexual abuse, violence, identity fraud, police misconduct, medical-record tampering, and electronic surveillance. He sought $5 million from the New York Police Department.
Reasons for Dismissal
The court conducted the required screening of a complaint filed by a person allowed to proceed without prepaying fees. Under that screening statute, the court must dismiss a complaint that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, seeks money from an immune defendant, or falls outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction.
The court held that the complaint failed to satisfy Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires a short and plain statement showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. The allegations involved seemingly unrelated events over many years, and the complaint did not explain how most defendants participated in violating Rodriguez’s rights. The court therefore dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim for relief.
The court also found improper joinder. Rules 18 and 20 generally allow related claims and parties to be joined but do not allow unrelated claims against multiple defendants in one case. The complaint combined allegations involving police officers, federal agents, and private individuals, including alleged murder, sexual abuse, physical assault, and medical-record tampering. The court allowed an amended complaint concerning one incident. Rodriguez must bring any other claims in separate civil actions that comply with the joinder rules.
Disposition
The court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim and granted Rodriguez 30 days’ leave to replead by filing an amended complaint that complies with Rule 8 and the joinder rules. Because the court could not say that amendment would be futile, it allowed the opportunity to amend. If Rodriguez does not file an amended complaint within the permitted time, the clerk will be directed to enter judgment.
The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims Rodriguez may have been asserting. It also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. Judge Laura Taylor Swain directed the clerk to keep the matter open on the docket until a civil judgment is entered.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.