El Bey v. Crocilla

Background

Queen Prinyah Godiah NMIAA Payne’s El Bey, who represented herself, sued the Metropolitan Transit Authority, MTA police officers identified as Leyland Crocilla, P.O. Michels, Vollas, and Lt. Coza, the City of New York, the Metropolitan Authority Police Benevolent Association, “MTA & MTA 34 precinct @ Penn Station,” and “Bellevue Hospital & Staff’s.” She alleged that defendants violated her rights during and after her arrest at Penn Station on January 9, 2020.

The court granted El Bey permission to proceed without paying filing fees. She filed several amended pleadings. The second amended complaint was 291 pages, partly illegible, and not divided into numbered paragraphs. After the court directed her to comply with Rules 8 and 10 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, she filed additional documents that the court construed as a third amended complaint and then a Fourth Amended Complaint. The court had extended the deadlines, provided specific drafting instructions, and offered assistance from pro bono counsel, which El Bey refused.

Motions to Dismiss

The City filed one motion to dismiss, and the MTA and the Officer Defendants filed another. Both motions argued that the Fourth Amended Complaint failed to comply with Rules 8 and 10. El Bey did not respond to either motion. The court explained that an unopposed motion to dismiss is not automatically granted and that it still had to evaluate the complaint.

Rule 8 requires a complaint to contain a short and plain statement showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Rule 10 generally requires claims to be presented in numbered paragraphs and, when appropriate, in separate counts. The court also explained that it must read a self-represented litigant’s complaint generously, but self-represented parties must still comply with these basic pleading rules.

Court’s Analysis

The court found that the Fourth Amended Complaint did not clearly identify the events supporting the lawsuit, which defendants were responsible for particular conduct, or what relief El Bey sought. It described the pleading as filled with irrelevant and confusing allegations, lengthy side discussions, Bible-verse citations, and grievances concerning the court’s orders.

The court noted that the allegations that might suggest a claim involving Officer Crocilla were buried in a long, unpunctuated passage. The complaint also used varied colors, fonts, and sizes and contained numerous grammatical and typographical errors. In the court’s view, the complaint’s lack of organization and excessive detail made its substance so difficult to understand that defendants could not reasonably determine the nature of the claims against them. The court therefore concluded that the complaint failed to state a claim in the required form under Rule 8 and that dismissal was an appropriate sanction for the pleading’s noncompliance.

Leave to Amend and Disposition

The court declined to give El Bey another opportunity to amend. It emphasized that she had already received four opportunities to amend, specific instructions about the pleading rules, and an offer of legal assistance. The court concluded that another amendment would be futile and dismissed the Fourth Amended Complaint with prejudice.

The court granted the City’s and the MTA Defendants’ motions to dismiss in their entirety and dismissed the action with prejudice. It denied as moot El Bey’s later requests for a conference about her dissatisfaction with a Rule 68 offer of judgment made by certain defendants. The court also noted that El Bey had appealed the earlier denial of her motion to transfer the case to the Southern District of Texas and directed the clerk to keep the case open while that appeal was resolved. The order addressed docket entries 92, 99, 106, and 107.