Yorro v. Jordan

Background

Jacqueline Yorro, who was incarcerated, appeared without a lawyer, and was proceeding without prepaying filing fees, filed an amended complaint and three letters that the court treated as supplements. The filings sought release from incarceration and raised allegations and requests concerning fees, family expenses, other litigation, the length of her prison term, criminal activity by others, communication with family, identification, documents from state officials, discarded packages, correction officers, and settlement of her litigation.

The amended complaint named Gigi Jordan, who appeared to be another prisoner, along with categories or descriptions such as “retaliation,” “corruption,” “Attorney’s Fraud[u]l[e]nt,” “Attorney’s Assistance,” “Boo[k]keepers,” and “Pharmaceutical Fraud.” It also referred to a New York City Correction Officer and employees of the New York City Department of Investigation, the Office of the New York State Attorney General, and perhaps federal agencies. Yorro alleged, among other things, identity theft, prosecutorial abuse and retaliation, verbal and sexual abuse by correction officers, inadequate medical care, retaliation by correction officials, and discarded packages.

Legal Standard

The court applied the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s screening requirements for prisoner complaints. It explained that such a complaint must be dismissed if it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, seeks money from an immune defendant, or falls outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. Although courts read filings by people without lawyers generously, Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure still requires a short and plain statement showing entitlement to relief. The complaint must contain enough factual detail to make liability plausible, not merely possible.

Habeas Request

The court treated Yorro’s request for release as a request for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the federal law governing certain challenges to state custody. The court held that she had not shown that she exhausted available state-court remedies before filing the action. She also did not state the grounds for seeking habeas relief or provide facts supporting those grounds. The court therefore denied the § 2254 request without prejudice.

Remaining Claims

The court construed the remaining claims as arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a statute allowing certain claims for violations by state officials, under Bivens, which can provide a damages remedy in some claims against federal officers, and under state law. The court held that Yorro did not provide enough facts to show how any defendant was legally responsible for violating her federal or state rights or otherwise injuring her. It therefore dismissed the remaining claims for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

The court also reiterated that seeking the criminal prosecution of other people or alleging that government officials failed to enforce the law does not state a claim. The opinion does not identify a separate merits ruling on the alleged abuse, medical care, retaliation, identity theft, or other underlying allegations.

Disposition

The court dismissed the action. It denied without prejudice Yorro’s request for habeas relief under § 2254, dismissed the remainder of her claims for failure to state a claim, and denied all remaining requests for relief as moot. The court stated that no certificate of appealability would issue and certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith; it therefore denied payment-free status for an appeal.