Barber v. Steuben County et al, No. 6:2019cv06684 - Document 26 (W.D.N.Y. 2021)
Court Description: DECISION AND ORDER Plaintiff's second through eighth amended complaints (Dkt. 6 , 9 , 10 , 13 , 14 , 23 , and 25 ) are dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and the action is dismissed with prejudice. P laintiff's motion for miscellaneous relief (Dkt. 24 ) is denied as moot. Signed by Hon. David G. Larimer on 12/14/2021. Copy of this Decision and Order sent by First Class Mail to plaintiff Tracy Anthony Barber on 12/14/2021 to his address of record. (KAH)-CLERK TO FOLLOW UP-
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Barber v. Steuben County et al Doc. 26 Case 6:19-cv-06684-DGL Document 26 Filed 12/14/21 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ___________________________________________ TRACY ANTHONY BARBER, DECISION AND ORDER Plaintiff, 19-CV-6684L v. STEUBEN COUNTY, et al., Defendants. ___________________________________________ On January 12, 2021, the Court issued a Decision and Order in this case (Dkt. #5) granting the pro se plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), but dismissing the original and amended complaints without prejudice, on the ground that they failed to state a claim. The Court gave plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint correcting the deficiencies in those complaints. Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on January 25, 2021 (Dkt. #6). He has continued to file amended complaints, without leave of court. His most recent, the eighth amended complaint, was filed on December 3, 2021 (Dkt. #25). Neither that complaint, nor any of plaintiff’s other amended complaints, are any better than the first, however. Plaintiff names three defendants, but it is impossible to determine what the nature of his claim is. He simply recites various statutes and legal terminology, with no apparent connection to any underlying facts or to each other. Plaintiff has also filed several other documents, none of which shed any more light on the nature of his “claim.” Dockets.Justia.com Case 6:19-cv-06684-DGL Document 26 Filed 12/14/21 Page 2 of 2 It is well settled that a district court has the power to–indeed, must–dismiss a case sua sponte where the complaint on its face fails to state a claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); Carmel v. CSH & C, 32 F.Supp.3d 434, 435 (W.D.N.Y. 2014). In light of plaintiff’s repeated failures to set forth any valid, or even conceivable claim, dismissal with prejudice is appropriate here. CONCLUSION Plaintiff’s second through eighth amended complaints (Dkt. #6, #9, #10, #13, #14, #23, and #25) are dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and the action is dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff’s motion for miscellaneous relief (Dkt. #24) is denied as moot. IT IS SO ORDERED. _______________________________________ DAVID G. LARIMER United States District Judge Dated: Rochester, New York December 14, 2021.
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
