Gomez Nacer v. Shea

Background

Dr. Maximo Gomez Nacer proceeded without a lawyer and invoked federal-question jurisdiction. He alleged that the defendants violated his rights under the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments and under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal civil-rights statute. He alleged that events began while he was working at the Division of General Medicine of New York Presbyterian Hospital and studying to become a certified doctor in the United States. He described alleged interference with employment, housing, credit, property, and his business interests, as well as alleged forced servitude and other harms. He sought monetary compensation from the Division of General Medicine for loss of livelihood, including alleged losses related to Zoo-Mechanics Corporation.

The complaint used a general form and included more than 85 additional pages of text and exhibits. The exhibits included a timeline, illustrations, patent-application excerpts, photographs, cartoons, and other materials.

Court’s analysis

The court applied the screening requirement for complaints filed without prepayment of filing fees. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the court must dismiss claims that are frivolous or malicious, fail to state a claim for relief, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court must also dismiss a case when it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. Although courts read self-represented complaints liberally, a complaint still must provide a short and plain statement of facts showing a plausible entitlement to relief.

The court dismissed the § 1983 claims because that statute requires facts showing that each defendant acted under state authority. The opinion states that New York Presbyterian Hospital is a private, nonprofit hospital and that Dr. Shea and Mr. Acosta are private parties who do not work for a state or other government body. On that basis, the court held that Dr. Gomez Nacer failed to state a § 1983 claim against these defendants.

The court also dismissed any remaining claims because the complaint’s disjointed and confusing information made it impossible to determine what other claims Dr. Gomez Nacer was attempting to bring. The court therefore found that those claims failed to state a claim for relief under the screening statute.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. It granted Dr. Gomez Nacer 30 days’ leave to replead his claims. Any amended complaint had to be labeled “Amended Complaint,” use docket number 20-CV-5197 (LLS), and be submitted to the court’s Pro Se Intake Unit. The court stated that no summons would issue at that time and that, if he did not timely amend or show good cause, it would enter a civil judgment consistent with the order and direct the clerk to terminate the matter. The clerk was directed to keep the matter open until a civil judgment was entered.