Kraft v. City of New York ( 2020 )

19-4193
Kraft v. City of New York
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY
ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF
APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER
IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN
ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY
ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit,
held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of
New York, on the 1st day of October, two thousand twenty.
PRESENT:
DENNIS JACOBS,
PIERRE N. LEVAL,
JOSEPH F. BIANCO,
Circuit Judges.
_____________________________________
Warren R. Kraft,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. 19-4193
The City of New York, (“CITY”) individually and
in their official capacity, John Does, police officers
and non-uniformed and under-cover police officers
of the New York City Police Department, Richard Roes,
Supervisory police officers of the City of New York,
the identity and number of whom is presently unknown,
United States of America, and individually and in their
official capacity, Unknown Federal Law Enforcement
Officers or Agents or Employees, and Unknown Officials
and Employees of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, (“FBI”),
National Security Agency (“NSA”), State of New York,
William Woes, Unknown New York State Law Enforcement
Officers or Agents or Employees, Zeke Zoes, Unknown
Officials and Officer Policy Makers and Supervisory
Employees Including the Director, Employees of the
New York State Intelligence Center (“NYSIC Fusion
Center”) and New York State Police, Tom Toes,
Unknown New York State Homeland Security and
Emergency Service and New York State Police,
Defendants-Appellees.*
_____________________________________
FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: Warren R. Kraft, pro se
Red Bank, NJ.
FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES: No appearance.
Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York (Furman, J.).
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND
DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Warren R. Kraft, pro se, sued the City of New York, unknown New York City police
officers, federal law enforcement agents, New York State law enforcement officers, the United
States, the director and unknown employees of the New York State Intelligence Center, and
unknown employees of the New York State Division of Homeland Security and Emergency
Services, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of
Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). In his 84-page complaint, Kraft alleged various constitutional
violations, including that an undercover confidential informant, at the direction of an unknown law
enforcement agency, used excessive force and assaulted him in 2018; that law enforcement officers
conspired to conceal that excessive use of force; and that he has been the subject of covert,
unconstitutional surveillance by unknown law enforcement agencies—including illegal
* The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to amend the official caption in this case to conform to the
caption above.
2
wiretapping and 24-hour, nationwide surveillance—since 2014, and that those agencies put a
digital marker on him to collect his personal data and harass him. After the assault in 2018, Kraft
allegedly sought help from New York City police officers, but when the officers detained the
“confidential informant,” Kraft informed the officers he would not press charges because,
according to Kraft, confidential informants are immune from criminal prosecution. The district
court sua sponte dismissed the complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i),
reasoning that, even under the liberal reading afforded to pro se pleadings, the complaint’s claims
were frivolous and this defect could not be cured by amendment. Kraft appealed. We assume
the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and issues on appeal.
This Court reviews de novo a district court’s sua sponte dismissal of a complaint pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Zaleski v. Burns, 606 F.3d 51, 52 (2d Cir. 2010) (per curiam). Under
that statute, the district court must dismiss a complaint filed in forma pauperis if it determines that
the action or appeal “(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be
granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.”
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). An action is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact—i.e.,
where it is “based on an indisputably meritless legal theory” or presents “factual contentions [that]
are clearly baseless.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989); see Gallop v. Cheney, 642
F.3d 364, 368 (2d Cir. 2011). To avoid dismissal, a complaint must plead “enough facts to state
a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570
(2007); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (tenet that allegations are assumed to
be true is “inapplicable to legal conclusions,” and “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause
of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice”). In addition, “district courts
3
may dismiss a frivolous complaint sua sponte even when the plaintiff has paid the required filing
fee.” Fitzgerald v. First E. Seventh St. Tenants Corp., 221 F.3d 362, 364 (2d Cir. 2000).
Even according “special solicitude” to Kraft’s pro se pleading, interpreting it to “raise the
strongest claims that it suggests,” Hill v. Curcione, 657 F.3d 116, 122 (2d Cir. 2011) (alterations
accepted) (quotation marks omitted), the district court did not err in sua sponte dismissing the
complaint as frivolous. Kraft alleged that he has been the subject of 24-hour, multi-jurisdictional
surveillance by federal “fusion centers” and the New York State Intelligence Center, which put a
“digital marker” on him in order to collect his personal data and harass him. See, e.g., Compl.
¶¶ 102-03, 119-120, Kraft v. City of New York, No. 19-cv-10286 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 5, 2019) (Dkt.
No. 2). Kraft’s assertions that he is the victim of a broad conspiracy perpetrated by various federal
and state law enforcement agencies are not plausible. See Gallop, 642 F.3d at 368 (holding that
dismissal is appropriate when factual allegations are “fanciful, fantastic, or delusional” (quotation
marks omitted)); Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992) (holding that “a finding of factual
frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly
incredible”). In addition, contrary to Kraft’s assertion, the district court had the authority to
dismiss the appeal as frivolous despite Kraft paying the filing fee. See Fitzgerald, 221 F.3d at
364.
Finally, although a district court should not ordinarily dismiss a pro se complaint without
granting leave to amend, it may do so when leave to amend would be futile. Cuoco v. Moritsugu,
222 F.3d 99, 112 (2d Cir. 2000). Here, the gravamen is Kraft’s irrational belief that he was the
victim of a broad conspiracy perpetrated by numerous government entities; so better pleading
would not cure this defect. See id.
4
For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court
5