Virgo v. Irizarry

Background

Virgillo Virgo paid the filing fees and brought this action without a lawyer. He named Jose Irizarry, identified as “DEA”; John Wright, identified as “Per Se”; and New York Police Sergeant Hector Lopez. The handwritten complaint contained statements about John Wright, drug and alcohol use, death, and detention centers, but it did not contain factual allegations explaining what the named defendants did or failed to do that harmed Virgo. It also did not clearly state what relief he sought.

The opinion says Virgo had previously sued Wright and Lopez in earlier related proceedings, and those actions were dismissed for failure to state a claim. Because Virgo paid the filing fees in this case, an earlier restriction on filing without paying fees did not apply.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 requires a complaint to provide a short and plain statement showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. A complaint must include enough facts to make a claim plausible, rather than merely possible. Although courts read filings by people without lawyers generously, those filings must still provide facts showing what each defendant allegedly did and why the plaintiff is entitled to relief.

The court found that Virgo’s complaint did not satisfy that standard because it did not provide the facts needed to determine whether he was entitled to relief. The court also addressed subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning the court’s legal authority to hear the case. The complaint did not allege facts showing federal-question jurisdiction because it did not identify facts suggesting a claim arising under federal law. It also did not establish diversity jurisdiction because it did not allege that all plaintiffs and defendants were citizens of different states or that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000.

Ruling

The court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted and for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. It granted Virgo leave to file an amended complaint within 30 days of the order. The amended complaint must comply with the pleading requirements, explain the facts supporting each claim, and establish a basis for federal jurisdiction. Virgo was instructed to submit it to the court’s Pro Se Intake Unit, label it “Amended Complaint,” and include docket number 23-CV-8242 (JGK). No summons would issue at that time.

The court directed the Clerk of Court to hold the matter open until a civil judgment is entered. It also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Virgo permission to appeal without paying the filing fee. The opinion states that if Virgo did not timely amend and could not show good cause for the failure, the court would direct the Clerk to enter judgment.