Tagger v. The Strauss Group Israel

Background

Benjamin Tagger, who was representing himself, filed a complaint against The Strauss Group Israel; Michael Avner; Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP; Joseph Saltarelli; and Silvia Ostrower. The court said Tagger’s handwriting and allegations were difficult to understand, and it could not determine what claims he was bringing or what each defendant allegedly did or failed to do.

Tagger attached a civilian crime report referring to an earlier related proceeding in the Eastern District of New York and later appeals. The earlier proceeding involved a dispute arising from a 1999 contract between two Israeli citizens, an Israeli debt-collection process, and real property in Israel. The earlier district court dismissed that case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and the appeals were unsuccessful.

Legal standards

The court explained that it may dismiss a complaint for frivolousness, lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, or failure to state a legally sufficient claim, even when the filing fee has been paid. A complaint must provide a short and plain statement showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. The facts must make the claim plausible, rather than merely possible. The court must read a self-represented litigant’s allegations liberally, but the complaint still must provide enough factual information to meet this standard.

Because Tagger invoked federal-question jurisdiction, the court construed the complaint as potentially asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. That statute requires allegations that a federally protected right was violated by a person acting for the state or local government. Private parties generally are not liable under that statute because the Constitution regulates government conduct, not purely private conduct.

Discussion

The court dismissed any § 1983 claims Tagger may have intended to bring against Michael Avner, Joseph Saltarelli, Silvia Ostrower, and Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP because the opinion identified them as private parties. The court also said Tagger’s claims against The Strauss Group Israel likely were claims that were or could have been raised in the earlier related proceeding. It therefore stated that those claims were presumably barred by claim preclusion, a rule that generally prevents a party from bringing claims that were already decided or could have been brought in an earlier case involving the same opposing party.

The court concluded that the complaint lacked the facts needed to determine whether Tagger was entitled to relief and failed to meet the pleading requirements. It dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. The opinion did not identify a clearly stated underlying legal claim beyond its construction of the complaint as potentially raising § 1983 claims.

Leave to amend and disposition

Because Tagger was representing himself, the court granted him 30 days from the date of the order to file an amended complaint. The court expressed doubt that he could cure the deficiencies but allowed amendment as a precaution. The amended complaint must be labeled “Amended Complaint,” use docket number 23-CV-6767 (CS), and completely replace rather than supplement the original complaint.

The court required the amended complaint to identify the relevant people and their titles, describe the relevant events and what each defendant did or failed to do, provide approximate dates and locations, describe Tagger’s injuries, and state the relief sought. No summons would issue at that time. If Tagger did not timely amend and could not show good cause, the court stated that it would direct the Clerk of Court to enter judgment. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free appeal status for purposes of an appeal.