The opinion
C/M
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------------------------------- X
CONSUELO MARIE BARBETTA, :
:
Plaintiff, :
: MEMORANDUM DECISION
- against - : AND ORDER
:
JIMMY COURNOYER, : 20-cv-1917 (BMC) (SJB)
:
Defendant. :
-------------------------------------------------------------- X
COGAN, District Judge.
Plaintiff pro se brings this diversity action against defendant, a convicted drug dealer,
under New York’s Drug Dealer Liability Act, N.Y. Gen. Oblig. § 12-101 et seq. Because
plaintiff alleges no facts from which the Court can infer defendant’s liability to plaintiff, the
complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff has 20 days from the
entry of this Order to file an amended complaint, if she so chooses.
BACKGROUND
According to the complaint, plaintiff was addicted to marijuana for almost 20 years
before defendant was arrested for his now well-publicized drug trafficking operation.1 Plaintiff
began smoking in high school and continued doing so during her time in college, where she lived
only minutes away from her unidentified drug dealer (not the defendant). Between 2008 and
2015, plaintiff “bought weed from the same person . . . at $20 per gram, sometimes several times
a day.” Plaintiff believes her drug habit cost her up to $75,000 per year and at least 30,000 hours
of her life.
1 See Alan Feuer, The Rise and Fall of the Biggest pot Dealer in New York City History, N.Y. Times, Sept. 5, 2014.
In 2015, plaintiff stopped purchasing marijuana from her long-time dealer, but was soon
after contacted on Facebook by another dealer who shared a mutual connection with plaintiff.
This relationship with the second dealer continued on for about three years. At some point in
2018, plaintiff sought rehabilitative treatment for her drug use, around which time she “was
informed that [she] was probably being extorted by a drug trafficking ring.” She thereafter filed
a police report and complaints with both the Department of Justice and a district attorney’s
office, although it doesn’t appear there has been an investigation regarding any of these reports.
As a result of her protracted drug use, plaintiff claims that she wasted a lot of time and
that her productivity, physical health, and financial stability have all greatly diminished.
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).
The Drug Dealer Liability Act, N.Y. Gen. Oblig. § 12-101 et seq., permits recovery of
damages by a former drug user against a person “who knowingly participated in the chain of
distribution of an illegal drug that was actually used by the individual drug user.” In order to
qualify as an eligible plaintiff under this law, the former drug user must have (a) disclosed all
known information regarding their source of drugs to law enforcement authorities more than six
months before filing the action; and (b) not used any illegal drug for at least six months
preceding filing the action. N.Y. Gen. Oblig. § 12-105. A plaintiff who meets these
requirements may recover economic damages, including for rehabilitation, treatment, and
medical expenses, as well as for “loss of economic potential” and “loss of productivity.” Id.
Here, plaintiff alleges no facts that tend to show, or even hint at, the possibility that
defendant played a part in her drug using activities. The lone mention of defendant in the
complaint is in response to a prompt in the form pleading asking plaintiff to “[s]tate how each
defendant was involved and what each defendant did the caused plaintiff harm.” In reply,
plaintiff merely writes that the defendant has a reputation as being “[t]he biggest pot dealer in
New York City History,” which is apparently a reference to the title of the New York Times
article cited above.
The only people identified in the complaint as playing a role in the “chain of distribution”
of illegal drugs consumed by plaintiff are the two drug dealers who sold marijuana to plaintiff
between 2008 and 2018. But they are not defendants in this action. Because plaintiff alleges no
discernable connection between her drug purchases and defendant’s conduct, the complaint fails
to state a claim for relief. Very simply, plaintiff may not sue someone who has nothing to do
with the harms she suffered. See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570.
CONCLUSION
The complaint is dismissed. Plaintiffs [2] request to proceed in forma pauperis 1s
granted. In light of plaintiffs pro se status, the Court will permit her to file an amended
complaint within 20 days from the date of this Order in order to plead any facts that tend to show
defendant is responsible for plaintiffs injuries. The amended complaint must be labeled
“Amended Complaint” and include the index number of this case (20-cv-1917). This amended
complaint will completely replace plaintiff's original complaint.
In addition, the Court has previously warned plaintiff that if she continued to file
frivolous complaints, then the Court would impose an anti-filing injunction against her. See
Barbetta v. Your Smile Dental, 18-cv-6702, Docket No. 9, March 28, 2019 Order, at 4. The
present case reflects the same frivolous character as her past complaints and it seems plaintiff is
content to continue to waste this Court’s time and resources. She is again warned that she is on
the cusp of having her right to file actions in federal court severely curtailed.
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 is denied for purpose of
an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).
SO ORDERED.
USD
Dated: Brooklyn, New York
April 27, 2020