Bolden v. John/Jane Doe

Background

Rhonda Bolden, appearing without a lawyer, filed a complaint alleging violations of her rights. The complaint invoked, among other things, a civil-rights claim under Section 1983 and described alleged events involving child-protection proceedings, an investigation, educational neglect, registries, accommodations, and related constitutional and statutory rights. The opinion does not decide whether any of those allegations are true or whether they state a valid claim.

The filing consisted of 2,067 pages of complaint materials and 472 pages of exhibits. It did not contain a caption or name the defendants. Because the Clerk’s Office required a defendant’s name to open the case, the docket listed “John/Jane Doe” as the defendant. The submission also included statutes, court decisions, emails, and documents that appeared related to Bolden’s proceedings before an administrative law judge with the New York State Office of Children and Family Services.

Court’s analysis

Because Bolden had been allowed to proceed without prepaying filing fees, the court reviewed the complaint under the federal screening statute. The court explained that it must dismiss such a complaint, or part of it, if it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, seeks money from an immune defendant, or falls outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also explained that self-represented pleadings are read liberally, but still must comply with the requirement that a complaint give a short and plain statement showing entitlement to relief.

The court held that the complaint violated that requirement because it was unnecessarily lengthy and did not provide a short and plain statement of the claim. It also held that the filing violated the rule requiring a pleading to include a caption naming all parties. The court instructed Bolden that an amended complaint must identify each defendant, describe the relevant facts and each defendant’s alleged conduct, provide approximate dates and locations, describe her injuries, and state the relief sought. The court strongly advised limiting the amended complaint to 30 pages and stated that evidence did not need to be submitted at this stage.

Other requests and disposition

The court stated that it would consider Bolden’s requests for accommodations as the litigation proceeded. If she needed more time to comply with the order, she could request an extension. The court denied her request for pro bono counsel without prejudice to renewal later because it was too early to assess the merits of the action, which the court identified as the most important factor in deciding that request.

The court granted Bolden leave to file an amended complaint within 60 days of the order. The amended complaint would replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint, so any facts or claims she wanted to retain had to be repeated. No summons would issue at that time. The court stated that, if Bolden failed to comply within the allowed period and could not show good cause, the complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal. Judge Laura Taylor Swain signed the order.