The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT C/M
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------------------------------- X
:
KWADWO BROWN, :
:
Plaintiff, : MEMORANDUM DECISION
: AND ORDER
- against - :
: 20-cv-623 (BMC) (CLP)
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONS et :
al., :
:
Defendants. :
-------------------------------------------------------------- X
COGAN, District Judge.
Plaintiff pro se brings this action against the FBI, DEA, and certain unknown persons.
The Court grants plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915. Because plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim for which relief can be granted, the
case is dismissed with leave to amend within 20 days.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff’s hand-written complaint appears to take issue with a federal law enforcement
investigation either against plaintiff or related to him in some way. He repeats, over and over,
that the case “has no merit,” is a “nonsense lying case,” and is an “investigation about nothing.”
Plaintiff also avers in his complaint that he does not distribute drugs, though he has medical
problems and is in serious pain. He seeks $900.
DISCUSSION
Pro se complaints are “held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by
lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted). However, they must still plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible
on its face,” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007), and to “allow[] the court
to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Although the Court assumes all factual allegations
contained in the complaint to be true, this principle is “inapplicable to legal conclusions.” Id.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court must dismiss an in forma pauperis action if it
determines that the action “(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief
may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such
relief.” An action “is frivolous when either: (1) the factual contentions are clearly baseless, such
as when allegations are the product of delusion or fantasy; or (2) the claim is based on an
indisputably meritless legal theory.” Livingston v. Adirondack Beverage Co., 141 F.3d 434, 437
(2d Cir. 1998) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Plaintiff’s complaint is wholly lacking in any details that would tend to support a valid
claim against any of the defendants. He alleges only that he believes the investigation against
him is baseless because he “do[es] not sell drugs or distribute drugs.” But it is not unlawful
merely for law enforcement to investigate for criminal activity despite the subject’s belief that he
is innocent. Cf. Popovic v. United States, 997 F. Supp. 672, 678 (D. Md. 1998) (“An individual
has no constitutional right not to be investigated for suspected violations by agencies authorized
to conduct such [investigations].” Plaintiff must therefore allege enough facts to demonstrate
that defendants violated his rights. Absent such a showing, there is no basis to conclude that
anyone acted wrongfully, necessitating dismissal of the complaint. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678
(2009).
\
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed. In light of plaintiff’s pro se status, the Court will
permit plaintiff to file an amended complaint within 20 days from the date of this Order, for the
purpose of alleging any additional facts regarding the conduct or events that give rise to a legal
claim. At a minimum, plaintiff must include facts regarding when and where the event(s)
occurred, the officers or other individuals involved, and the conduct that those people engaged
in. Plaintiff is cautioned that if all that has happened is a routine law enforcement investigation
with which he disagrees, he has no viable claim.
The amended complaint must be labeled “Amended Complaint” and include the index
number of this case (20-cv-623). This amended complaint will completely replace plaintiff's
original complaint. If plaintiff fails to submit an amended complaint within 20 days, or if the
amended complaint does not comply with this Order, judgment dismissing this action shall be
entered.
The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order
would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status 1s denied for purpose of
an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).
SO ORDERED.
— USDI
Dated: Brooklyn, New York
February 4, 2020