Yorro v. Cano

Background

Jacqueline Yorro brought the action under the court’s federal-question jurisdiction. She was representing herself and had previously been allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee. The complaint named several defendants, including Rafael Abel Cano, OSHA Duplisse’s Joe Corporation, OSHA/International affairs, and Nancy Peña, as listed in the opinion.

Yorro described alleged events at Riker’s Island and the Taconic, Bedford Hills, and Albion correctional facilities from 2014 through 2021. Her allegations referred to interference with legal mail, surveillance and recording devices, withheld mail and benefits, identity theft, internet or wire fraud, assaults, and an alleged electrocution. She sought unspecified damages. The opinion states that the complaint concerned several different defendants and unrelated events.

Court’s Analysis

For complaints filed without prepaying fees, 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 also must dismiss a case when it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning authority to hear the dispute.

The court focused on the requirement in Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that a complaint provide a short and plain statement showing why the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Although courts read self-represented complaints liberally, the complaint still must include enough factual information to make a plausible claim and allow the court to reasonably infer that a defendant is responsible for the alleged misconduct.

The court concluded that it could not discern what claim Yorro was attempting to assert. It found that the allegations did not identify understandable claims or provide enough facts to allow a reasonable inference that the defendants were liable. The court also referred to an earlier related proceeding involving Yorro, explaining that the pleading problems there had similarly led to dismissal after an amended complaint.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). It granted Yorro 30 days’ leave to replead, meaning she could file a new complaint addressing the defects. The opinion does not use the terms “with prejudice” or “without prejudice.”

Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Yorro permission to appeal without prepaying fees. The opinion does not decide whether any of the alleged underlying events occurred or whether any defendant was ultimately liable.