Avramham v. The Gvent State of N.Y.

Background

Moshe Avramham, also known as Marvin Arnold Pollack, filed the action on behalf of another individual identified as Mr. Flores. Avramham alleged that the defendants violated Flores’s federal constitutional rights. The opinion states that both individuals appeared to be patients at Mid-Hudson Psychiatric Hospital. Avramham appeared to be acting as Flores’s “next friend,” although the complaint stated that he did so without consulting Flores or obtaining his permission because Flores was not competent to make legal decisions. The complaint named approximately 22 defendants.

The court granted Avramham permission to proceed without paying the filing fee for the limited purpose of addressing the complaint. In screening a complaint filed under that status, the court must dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim for relief, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court must also dismiss a case over which it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction.

Reasons for Dismissal

The court held that the complaint did not satisfy Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires a short and plain statement showing that the filer is entitled to relief. The handwritten complaint was largely illegible and incoherent, and the court said it was unable to understand the nature of the claims. Although courts must read filings by people without lawyers generously, that leniency does not excuse an unreadable complaint that fails to give defendants fair notice of the claims and their supporting grounds.

The court separately ruled that Avramham could not raise claims on Flores’s behalf because the opinion did not indicate that Avramham was an attorney. A person proceeding without a lawyer may generally represent only himself or herself. If Flores lacked legal capacity to sue, he could proceed through a guardian, conservator, guardian ad litem, or next friend, but that person would have to be an attorney or be represented by an attorney.

Disposition

The court dismissed any claims Avramham sought to raise on Flores’s behalf under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), as stated in the discussion. It declined to allow amendment because it found that the defects could not be cured by revising the complaint. The conclusion states that the complaint was dismissed without prejudice to claims Flores might assert on his own behalf or through a duly appointed representative, guardian ad litem, or next friend who is an attorney or represented by an attorney. The conclusion appears to contain a typographical error in citing the statutory subsection as “(i1).”