Starke v. Fuentes

Background

Charles Bernard Starke, Jr. filed this action representing himself and without paying the filing fee. The opinion states that he appears to be detained in the Rockland County Jail. His original complaint asserted constitutional and other federal-law claims arising from allegations of false arrest, inadequate medical care, an unlawful search, and denial of due process in his ongoing criminal proceedings in Rockland County Court. He sought declaratory and injunctive relief, including immediate release, and money damages.

After filing the original complaint, Starke filed three amended complaints and several emergency motions. The filings named different defendants and asserted different allegations. One amended complaint was unsigned by Starke, and another filing was signed in handwriting by Teresa Murphy and electronically signed by Starke. Murphy was not a plaintiff in the case. The court also noted that some filings sought relief for Murphy.

Teresa Murphy’s filings

The court held that Murphy could not seek relief in this case because she was not a plaintiff. It also held that, as a nonlawyer, she could not represent Starke or litigate the action for him. Any claims brought by Murphy in her own name or on Starke’s behalf were dismissed without prejudice. The court directed Murphy to stop signing and filing documents in the action.

Emergency motions

The court considered two motions to compel production of documents, a motion for injunctive relief, and requests for a temporary restraining order and immediate release. A temporary restraining order is a short-term court order intended to prevent specified harm while a case proceeds. To obtain that relief, Starke had to show likely irreparable harm and either a likelihood of success on the merits or sufficiently serious legal questions combined with a strongly favorable balance of hardships.

The court denied the requests for release and for dismissal of Starke’s state criminal charges. It relied on its earlier ruling that the Younger abstention doctrine barred federal-court intervention in his ongoing state criminal proceedings. The court also stated that Starke had alleged no facts showing that he had exhausted available state remedies, which was required before seeking release through a federal custody challenge.

The court denied the two motions to compel production of documents because Starke alleged no facts showing a legal basis for the requested documents. It also denied the May 4 motion for injunctive relief because the filing was not captioned for this court, was not signed by Starke, and did not allege facts showing likely success or entitlement to the requested relief. The court denied the pending requests for preliminary injunctive relief identified in ECF 15, 16, 17, and 18.

The court warned that, if Starke continued filing repetitive and meritless emergency motions, it might require him to explain why he should not be barred from filing future motions in this action without first obtaining the court’s permission.

Required amended complaint

The court explained that each amended complaint ordinarily replaces the earlier complaint and makes the earlier pleading legally ineffective. Because Starke appeared not to understand that effect, the court directed him to file, within 30 days, a single pleading labeled a Fourth Amended Complaint. That pleading must name every party he seeks to sue, state all claims for relief, and allege facts supporting each claim against each defendant.

The court further directed that the pleading comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 18 and 20, which govern joining claims and parties. If Starke did not timely file the new pleading, the court would treat the third amended complaint, ECF 18, as the operative pleading and proceed accordingly.

Disposition

The court denied the pending requests for preliminary injunctive relief, directed Starke to file a single operative pleading within 30 days, and denied fee-free status for an appeal after certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. The opinion was signed by Chief United States District Judge Laura Taylor Swain.