Pereira v. New York City Department of Education

Background

Arao Abel Pereira filed the action while representing himself and proceeding without paying filing fees. In an earlier order, the court directed him to amend his complaint because it included unrelated claims against multiple defendants, claims he appeared to assert on behalf of his minor daughters, and insufficient information establishing federal subject-matter jurisdiction. The court had instructed him to focus on one incident, comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8's requirement for a short and plain statement, and provide facts supporting either federal-question jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction.

Pereira's amended submission again contained numerous unrelated allegations and attachments. The submission named the City of New York, several New York City agencies, and the United States Postal Service on the complaint form, and attached additional documents labeled as amended complaints naming various other defendants. The allegations concerned healthcare facilities, an alleged incident involving a doctor, alleged sexual abuse of Pereira's daughters, an attorney, businesses, airlines, and other individuals and entities.

Court's analysis

The court concluded that the amended complaint did not cure the deficiencies identified in its earlier order. It again asserted unrelated claims against multiple defendants in violation of Rules 18 and 20, which govern the joining of claims and parties. The court also reiterated that any second amended complaint must comply with Rule 8 and must allege facts establishing subject-matter jurisdiction. For federal claims, Pereira had to identify facts showing a federal cause of action. For state-law claims based on diversity jurisdiction, he had to allege that he and every defendant were citizens of different states and that the amount in dispute exceeded $75,000.

Because Pereira was representing himself, the court explained that district courts generally give a self-represented plaintiff an opportunity to amend unless amendment would be futile. The court granted another opportunity in this case, while limiting the proposed second amended complaint to one incident and the individuals or entities involved in that incident. Pereira could pursue other unrelated claims in separate actions, subject to the joinder rules and the filing-fee or fee-waiver requirements for each action.

Ruling and effect

The court granted Pereira leave to file a second amended complaint within 30 days. It directed him to submit the complaint to the court's Pro Se Intake Unit, label it "Second Amended Complaint," and use docket number 23-CV-10396 (LTS). No summons would issue at that time. The court stated that if Pereira failed to comply and could not show good cause for the failure, the action would be dismissed without prejudice to refiling the claims in separate actions that comply with Rules 18 and 20.

The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied Pereira permission to proceed without paying filing fees for an appeal. The order did not decide whether Pereira's underlying allegations were legally or factually valid.