Hutchins v. D.H.S.

Background

Barry Hutchins filed a handwritten complaint while representing himself and requested permission to proceed without paying court fees in advance. The court had granted that request on February 11, 2021. The opinion says the complaint was difficult to read, did not clearly identify whom Hutchins intended to sue, and raised numerous seemingly unrelated issues. It also says that Hutchins appeared to be homeless and had not provided an address where he could receive court orders.

Hutchins described difficulties with Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits, cash assistance, and Social Security benefits at offices in Brooklyn and Manhattan. He also sought to be moved from Rockland County to BRC, a nonprofit organization that operates homeless shelters, transitional housing, and other social services. He referred to statements from Bellevue Hospital and described problems involving his chest, feet, ankles, and ears. He also sought reissuance of Social Security Income checks and removal of the personal identification number for his Direct Express debit card.

Legal standard and analysis

Because Hutchins was allowed to proceed without prepaying fees, the court was required to review his complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). That law requires dismissal of a complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks money from a defendant who is legally immune from that relief. The court also noted that it must dismiss a case when it lacks authority to hear the subject matter.

The court explained that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 requires a complaint to provide a short and plain statement showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. A claim must be plausible, meaning that the alleged facts—not merely legal conclusions—must make entitlement to relief reasonably possible. After reviewing the complaint, the court concluded that Hutchins had not included facts supporting his claims and therefore failed to state a claim for relief.

Leave to amend

Because it was unclear whether Hutchins might be able to state a valid claim, the court granted him 60 days to file an amended complaint. The court encouraged him to seek assistance in preparing it and identified a free legal clinic for people representing themselves in civil cases in the Southern District of New York. The amended complaint had to be submitted to the court’s Pro Se Intake Unit, labeled “Amended Complaint,” and identify docket number 21-CV-1221 (LLS).

Other litigation history

The court stated that Hutchins had previously been warned in prior related proceedings that his complaints were difficult to understand and that continued frivolous or non-meritorious litigation could lead to an order barring him from filing civil actions without the court’s permission. The court said that warning remained in effect. The opinion also states that another federal court had imposed a prefiling injunction against Hutchins.

Disposition

The court dismissed Hutchins’s complaint for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). It granted Hutchins 60 days to file an amended complaint. If he did not file one within that period, the court stated that it would enter a civil judgment consistent with the order and direct the Clerk to terminate the matter.