Almonte v. Law Enforcement Agency
- Laura Swain
- 1:21-cv-08991
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Almonte v. Law Enforcement Agency, Judge Swain dismissed Juan Carlos Almonte’s complaint as frivolous, denied amendment, and denied permission to appeal without paying fees.
Juan Carlos Almonte’s complaint was dismissed at the prisoner-screening stage; the action’s named defendants were not required to litigate the claims, and Almonte was denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees.
What happened
In Almonte v. Law Enforcement Agency, Juan Carlos Almonte, who was incarcerated and representing himself, filed a complaint against several defendants, including Michael Capra. The complaint was difficult to read, and Almonte appeared to raise concerns about his mail and asked the court to order Capra’s arrest.
The court dismissed the complaint as frivolous, meaning it found no reasonable factual or legal basis for the claims. It also declined to let Almonte amend the complaint because the court concluded that its problems could not be fixed. The court denied permission to appeal without paying the required fees.
Chief United States District Judge Laura Taylor Swain ruled that the complaint’s allegations were irrational and that the named agencies and departments were not proper defendants. She dismissed the action under the prisoner-screening law and certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Almonte v. Law Enforcement Agency · No. 1:21-cv-08991
- Laura Swain
- Jan. 10, 2022
Background
Juan Carlos Almonte brought the action without a lawyer while incarcerated at Sing Sing Correctional Facility. The court had previously granted him permission to proceed without prepaying the filing fee. The opinion notes that prisoners must still pay the full filing fee over time even when granted that permission.
The complaint was illegible, included indecipherable handwriting and notes in the margins, and contained statements the court could not understand. Almonte appeared to allege that his mail lacked a United States Postal Service tracking stamp. He asked the court to order the arrest of Michael Capra, identified as the superintendent of Sing Sing. He also sued Law Enforcement Agency, Department of Correction, and Mail Process and Postal Service, which the court said were not proper defendants.
Court’s Analysis
Under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b), courts must screen complaints filed by prisoners proceeding without prepaying fees. The court must dismiss a complaint that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a legally valid claim, or seeks money from a defendant protected from such relief. A claim is frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis in fact or law.
The court said that it had read Almonte’s filing with the special consideration given to complaints filed without a lawyer. Even so, it concluded that the claims were irrational and that no legal theory supported them. Although courts generally give a self-represented plaintiff a chance to amend a defective complaint, the court found that amendment would be futile because the defects could not be cured.
Disposition
The court dismissed Almonte’s complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). It declined to grant leave to amend. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees. Chief United States District Judge Laura Taylor Swain directed the Clerk of Court to mail Almonte a copy of the order and record service on the docket.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.