Maccaro v. U.S Government

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

-----------------------------------------------------------x

MICHAEL MACCARO,

Plaintiff,

MEMORANDUM and ORDER

-against- 25-CV-4407 (OEM) (MMH)

US GOVERNMENT and DEPT OF MOTOR

VEHICLES (ALL STATES),

Defendants.

-----------------------------------------------------------x

ORELIA E. MERCHANT, District Judge:

Plaintiff Michael Maccaro (“Plaintiff”) filed this pro se complaint on August 6, 2025,

against the U.S. Government and the Department of Motor Vehicles (“Defendants”). Compl.,

Dkt. 1. Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), Dkt. 2, is granted for the limited

purpose of this Order. For the following reasons, the action is dismissed.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff submits a handwritten complaint on a form civil rights complaint. In the spaces

on the form complaint to identify the constitutional rights that have been violated, Plaintiff asserts

“constitutional rights, human rights” and “privacy right, right to be left alone.” Compl. at 4. In

the space to explain how Defendants acted under color of state or federal law, Plaintiff asserts

“posioning me, forcing me to do something against my will, forcing religon on me” [sic]. Id. In

the space to identify the statement of claim, Plaintiff alleges that he was poisoned or drugged by

multiple food establishments. Id. at 5. In the space to identify his injuries, he claims “large blood

clots blowing my nose from drugs 2 times.” Id. at 6. He does not ascribe any acts or omissions

to the named Defendants. Id. at 3. Plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages. Id. at 6.

DISCUSSION

Courts are required to give special consideration to pro se litigants, those individuals who

are not attorneys and are representing themselves in court. This means that they are not expected

to meet the same standards required for formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. Erickson v. Pardus,

551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). In giving pro se complaints special consideration, the Court must look

for the strongest arguments in the complaint. Id.; Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant, 537 F.3d

185, 191-93 (2d Cir. 2008) (citations omitted). If the Court finds any possibility that “a valid

claim might be stated,” the Court must give the pro se plaintiff an opportunity to amend the

complaint. Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99, 112 (2d Cir. 2000).

A federal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), allows poor plaintiffs to file lawsuits without

paying the usual filing fee. This statute requires a district court to dismiss a case if the complaint

“(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).

A complaint fails to state a claim if it includes only basic claims without any factual details.

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). An action is frivolous when “the factual contentions

are clearly baseless, such as when allegations are the product of delusion or fantasy.” Livingston

v. Adirondack Beverage Co., 141 F.3d 434, 437 (2d Cir. 1998) (citations omitted). “[A] finding

of factual frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or

the wholly incredible, whether or not there are judicially noticeable facts available to contradict

them.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992).

Plaintiff’s allegations fail to state a claim and are frivolous. He does not allege that the

named Defendants took any actions against him. He claims that he was drugged by various food

establishments that are not named as defendants. His conclusory allegations that he was forced

into a religious act and to do something against his will are not supported by any factual details.

Accordingly, these claims are dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii).

Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court has considered giving him an opportunity

to amend the complaint. However, because the deficiencies in the complaint are not such that

could be cured by amendment, the Court concludes that it would be futile to grant leave to amend.

See O'Hara v. Weeks Marine, Inc., 294 F.3d 55, 69 (2d Cir. 2002) (“a district court may deny leave

to amend the complaint if the amendment would be futile”); Burton v. USA, 21-CV-6238, 2022

WL 1093217, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 12, 2022) (“[B]because the complaint is based on a fanciful

factual scenario that could not be cured by amendment, . . . it would be futile to grant leave to

amend.”).

CONCLUSION

For these reasons, the Complaint is dismissed as frivolous and for failure to state a claim

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any

appeal 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).

The Clerk of Court is requested to mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff, note mailing on

the docket, and close this case.

SO ORDERED.

/s/

ORELIA E. MERCHANT

United States District Judge

September 24, 2025

Brooklyn, New York