Goldstein v. The Bowery Defendants

1

JESSE S. GOLDSTEIN^[1] Plaintiff, v. THE BOWERY DEFENDANTS, et al., Defendants.

No. 24-CV-5683 (LTS)

United States District Court, S.D. New York

August 12, 2024

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE TO REPLEAD

LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge:

Plaintiff brings this action pro se. He sues more than thirty defendants, invoking the Fair Housing Act (FHA), the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C § 1961 et seq., the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, and asserting state law claims for conversion and “breach of fiduciary duty.”

By order dated August 7, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), that is, without prepayment of fees.^[2]

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The Court must dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint or any portion of the complaint, that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see Livingston v. Adirondack Beverage Co., 141 F.3d 434, 437 (2d Cir. 1998). The Court must also dismiss a complaint when the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction of the claims raised. See Fed.R.Civ.P 12(h)(3).

While the law mandates dismissal on any of these grounds, the Court is obliged to construe pro se pleadings liberally, Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir. 2009), and interpret them to raise the “strongest [claims] that they suggest,” Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (emphasis in original). But the “special solicitude” in pro se cases, id. at 475 (citation omitted), has its limits -to state a claim, pro se pleadings still must comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires a complaint to make a short and plain statement showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.

BACKGROUND

The following allegations are drawn from Plaintiff's complaint, in which he asserts claims about the loss of his New York law license. On an unspecified date, Plaintiff “voluntarily resigned under protest from the New York bar for many reasons” dating back to “January 1992 at least.” (Id. at 5.) Barry Kamins, who represented Plaintiff in those proceedings, acted improperly because he was a “member of the Grievance Committee” and he allegedly “fixed the case.” (Id.) In addition, social worker Hillel Bodek, who was also involved in those proceedings “lacked the credentials.” (Id.) Plaintiff contends that these acts “constitute[e] violations of the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq and 1964, 42 USC 1983, 13th Amendment (involuntary servitude, slavery), 14th Amendment Due Process and Equal Protection and New York State fraud.” (Id.)

Next, Plaintiff asserts claims about the diminution of his inheritance. Plaintiff contends that the estate of his parents should have been worth at least $630,000. However, during the “subprime crisis,” the actions of “the Chase group” diminished the value of Sarah and Howard Goldstein's home (from $630,000 to $450,000). (Id.) Plaintiff names as Defendants JP Morgan Chase, its Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon, and Martin Gruenberg, Chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).

Defendants Martin Goldstein, MD, Peter Clateman, Saul Clateman, Robert Freedman, Esq., and Joyce Clateman, whose relationship to Plaintiff is unclear, allegedly “colluded and conspired to leave Jesse Goldstein, Sarah and Howard Goldstein's caretaker, penniless and homeless which they did by breaching their fiduciary duties.” (Id. at 6.) Barton Rack, Bonnie Rack, Susan Rack, and Eugene Moskovitz also allegedly “converted” property from the estate of Plaintiff's parents. (Id. at 7.) Plaintiff asserts that he “should have received the entire estate but got zero and he became homeless in 2014.” (Id. at 9.) These individuals also joined with “Abraham Niyazov and Yiosoel Botnick to convert and destroy all of Plaintiff's Jesse Goldstein property at a previous residence including life sustaining medications . . . [and] his entire law book library.” (Id.) Plaintiff asserts that depriving him of his law books, “constitute[es] the crime of obstruction of justice, a RICO predicate offense.” (Id.)

Plaintiff also brings claims about his stay at the Bowery Mission shelter and his eventual exclusion from its services. He sues the Bowery Mission, its President and CEO James Winans, the Christian Herald Association, Elizabeth Carabello Esq., Supervisor Julia (or Julie) Doe, John and Jane Doe volunteers, and Social Worker Kathy Doe, collectively “the Bowery Mission Defendants.” Plaintiff alleges that, due to antisemitism, the theft of his property was “engineered” and “organized by the Bowery staff” in order to exclude him from the shelter.

On June 15, 2024, Plaintiff was released from the hospital, and he stayed that night at the Bowery Mission. A towel was stolen from his bed, and the replacement towel that he was given was “tiny.” (Id. at 30.) On the second night, a sheet was missing. On the third night, Plaintiff's package of two sheets and a towel were all missing. Later on June 18, 2024, Plaintiff was at the store when he realized that his wallet was missing. The wallet included $141.00 in cash, Plaintiff's driver's license, his reduced fare MetroCard, and his United Health Care card. Plaintiff called the Bowery Mission and informed “Julie,” who answered the phone, about his stolen wallet, but she said that there was nothing she could do about it. (Id. at 32.) Plaintiff did learn, however, that his authorized stay would be extended to July 1, 2024.

Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff called back and spoke to a different person, also named Julie, and who said that she was the supervisor. Plaintiff asked if he could switch his bed and floor, because he assumed that someone near him at the shelter had taken his wallet, but the supervisor refused. (Id. at 33.) Plaintiff identified himself as an attorney and explained that the Bowery Mission owed a duty of reasonable care and that the ratio of staff to residents was inadequate. (Id. at 33-34.) The supervisor then screamed at Plaintiff that the Bowery Mission was “not responsible for” his property. Plaintiff informed her that, in fact, that was not the law; she hung up the phone. (Id. at 34.)

Plaintiff called back and asked for Julie, the supervisor. The volunteer who answered the phone said that Julie was unavailable. Plaintiff told the volunteer that those at the Bowery Mission, which purports to be Christian, were “hypocrites” because the Ten Commandments prohibit stealing and the Bowery Mission was negligent in protecting the property of guests. The volunteer hung up the phone.

Later that evening, “Kathy” from the Bowery Mission called and said that someone had “found” Plaintiff's wallet, though she did not know who. (Id. at 35.) She told Plaintiff that he could retrieve his wallet from “Keith” at the Bowery Mission. Plaintiff hurried to the Bowery Mission, arriving by about 7 p.m. He found Keith, who handed Plaintiff the wallet, which now contained $14.00. Plaintiff's food stamp card and $127.00 in cash were missing. (Id. at 36.) Plaintiff asked about a bed at the shelter but was told that he could not stay because he had not been there at 5 p.m. Since that time, Plaintiff has been sleeping on the subway or a park bench. Later, when Plaintiff attempted to get lunch at the Bowery Mission, he was told that he is “restricted and cannot come to the Bowery Mission because [he] insulted a staff member.” (Id. at 36.)

Plaintiff reasons that Bowery Mission staff must have stolen his wallet “intentionally to evict and exclude permanently Jesse Goldstein, a Jew.” (Id. at 38.) First, he argues that if shelter residents had stolen his wallet, they would have taken his driver's license, MetroCard, and healthcare card. (Id.) Second, he argues that the timing of the events, and the fact that he was called to retrieve his wallet after the 5 p.m. deadline, supports the conclusion that Bowery Mission staff staged the theft. Moreover, he asserts that his “insult” of staff does not warrant a permanent ban, particularly in light of his otherwise model behavior during previous stays. (Id. at 40.) Plaintiff states that his name, Jesse Seth Goldstein, is “a highly recognizable Jewish name,” and concludes that he has been discriminated against in housing based on his Jewish religion, in violation of the FHA.

Plaintiff also argues that the Bowery Mission offers illegal short-term rentals, citing the New York City Administrative Code. He contends that the Bowery Mission violated the criminal code, and he seeks treble damages for each day that he was “locked out.” (Id. at 43.) Plaintiff sues the City of New York, the NYPD, Mayor Eric Adams, Police Commissioner Edward Caban, Police Officers “John” Gonzalez and “John” Kieffer, John Doe Supervisor, and Inspector Tao Chen, who is the Commanding Officer of the 5th Precinct. With regard to the police defendants, Plaintiff alleges the following:

The body camera footage by PO Gonzalez PO Kiefer and wherein, among other things, Jesse Goldstein, Esq told them he was an attorney and informed them of the Multiple Dwelling Law, the NYC Administrative Code sections 26-251 through 259 which provide that what happened was and is a continuing criminal offense. I also point out that they also conversed with their supervisor in their police car out of my earshot and came out and told me to ‘go to court.' Which is exactly what I am doing except instead of landlord tenant I am taking these two police officers and

...