Avramham v. NYS OMH

Background

Moshe Avramham, also known as Marvin Arnold Pollack, brought the action while representing himself. The court had previously allowed him to proceed without paying the filing fee in advance.

The complaint was largely illegible. It did not list defendants in the caption; instead, it referred to attached schedules that apparently were not included. The readable portions appeared to identify “NYS OMH” as a potential defendant. The court explained that the Clerk listed NYS OMH on the docket because a defendant had to be identified to open the case and NYS OMH was the only potential defendant that could be easily identified.

Avramham wrote that he was being held at Mid-Hudson Forensic Psychiatric Facility under New York Criminal Procedure Law § 220.15, although he stated that he had not pleaded guilty or accepted a plea bargain. He also stated that he was a “United States enrolled agent” who was not in good standing because the facility allegedly denied him access to a dedicated Internal Revenue Service website needed for continuing professional education. The complaint did not clearly describe his injuries, referring instead to missing schedules, and requested money in an amount consisting of a series of nines and infinity signs.

Court’s Analysis

The court applied the screening rules for complaints filed without advance payment of the filing fee. Those rules require dismissal if a complaint is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks money from a defendant who is legally immune from such relief. The court also said it had to read a self-represented litigant’s complaint generously and interpret it to present the strongest claims reasonably suggested by the filing.

Even under that generous standard, the court found the complaint frivolous. It said the complaint failed to meet minimal pleading requirements because it was illegible, made it unclear whom Avramham was suing, did not identify when or where the relevant events occurred, and contained no facts showing that he was entitled to legal relief. The court stated that it was “hard-pressed” to discern any factual allegations. It also concluded that the request for an infinite amount of money further confirmed that the complaint was frivolous.

Ruling

Judge Louis L. Stanton dismissed the complaint and the action as frivolous. The court declined to give Avramham permission to amend because it found that the defects could not be cured by amendment. The Clerk was directed to mail him a copy of the order and note service on the docket.

The discussion cites 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), while the final sentence refers to § 1915(e)(2)(B)(a). The opinion does not use the terms “with prejudice” or “without prejudice.”