Gomez Nacer v. Shea
- Louis Stanton
- 1:20-cv-05197
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Gomez Nacer v. Shea, Judge Stanton dismissed the amended complaint and denied the motion to add exhibits.
Maximo Gomez Nacer, IV’s amended complaint was dismissed, and his motion to add exhibits was denied. The court did not allow another amendment. The defendants were Steven Shea and Ivan Acosta.
What happened
In Maximo Gomez Nacer, IV v. Dr. Steven Shea, Maximo Gomez Nacer, IV filed an amended complaint after the court previously dismissed his claims but allowed him to try again. He also submitted documents labeled motions to add evidence and exhibits.
The amended complaint described alleged harm, threats, interference with work and finances, privacy violations, and other conduct. It referred to constitutional rights, federal criminal laws, forced labor, slavery, and clean-energy inventions. The court found that the defendants were private individuals, not government actors, so they could not generally be sued under the civil-rights law cited by the plaintiff. The complaint also did not provide the short and plain statement required by the federal rules. The court further explained that a private person cannot start a criminal prosecution against someone.
Judge Louis L. Stanton dismissed the amended complaint for failure to state a claim, declined to allow another amendment, and denied the motion to add exhibits. The order did not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.
The detailed version
- Gomez Nacer v. Shea · No. 1:20-cv-05197
- Louis Stanton
- Sept. 29, 2020
Background
Maximo Gomez Nacer, IV proceeded without a lawyer and asked to proceed without paying the filing fee. In an August 7, 2020 order, the court dismissed his claims for failure to state a claim but gave him 30 days to file an amended complaint. The court received the amended complaint on September 2, 2020, a document labeled “Motion of the Plaintiff to Add Evidence” on September 11, 2020, and a 92-page document labeled “Motion to Add Exhibits” on September 23, 2020.
Allegations and claims
The amended complaint invoked federal-question jurisdiction and referred to 18 U.S.C. §§ 1584 and 1589, Chapter 77 of the federal criminal code, constitutional rights, and alleged forced labor, threats, abuse of legal processes, privacy violations, financial and reputational harm, interference with employment, and other alleged conduct dating from 2001. The filings also discussed the plaintiff’s clean-energy technology, alleged harassment, financial institutions, surveillance-related materials, and documents concerning his claimed inventions.
The plaintiff again named Steven Shea and Ivan Acosta as defendants. The court determined that they were private parties who did not work for a state or other government body. Because private parties are generally not liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the amended complaint did not state a § 1983 claim against them. The court also found that the complaint failed to satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, which requires a short and plain statement showing entitlement to relief.
Criminal-law allegations
To the extent the plaintiff relied on federal criminal statutes, the court dismissed those claims because a private plaintiff cannot initiate an arrest or criminal prosecution. The decision to prosecute belongs to prosecutors, who have discretion to bring criminal cases.
Ruling
The court dismissed the amended complaint for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). It concluded that the defects could not be cured by another amendment and declined to give the plaintiff another opportunity to amend. Judge Louis L. Stanton also denied the “Motion to Add Exhibits” identified as ECF No. 8. The order does not state that the dismissal was with prejudice or without prejudice.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.