Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Olmo v. Narker

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts

July 27, 2015

JOHN IVAN OLMO, Plaintiff,
v.
STEVEN NARKER, et al., Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

WILLIAM G. YOUNG, District Judge.

BACKGROUND

On September 5, 2014, John Ivan Olmo ("Olmo"), a self-described homeless resident of Waltham, Massachusetts, filed a pro se complaint and motions for counsel and for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. See Docket. By Memorandum and Order dated October 21, 2014, plaintiff's motions for counsel and to proceed in forma pauperis were denied and plaintiff was advised that his complaint was subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See Docket No. 10.

The October Memorandum and Order noted that Olmo believes that he is entitled to certain settlement funds that were allegedly secured by a lawyer who placed his money in an investment club managed by a law firm with personal ties to several elected officials in New York. The Memorandum and Order advised Olmo that his complaint didn't meet the pleading requirements the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and that missing from the complaint was any decipherable articulation of what happened to whom, when, and where and the manner in which the alleged misconduct violated his rights.

In light of the pleading deficiencies, the Court advised Olmo in the October 14, 2014 Memorandum and Order that if he wishes to pursue this action, he must file an amended complaint. Olmo was advised, among other things, that any amended complaint must clearly state what each defendant allegedly did and must identify the causes of action he is bringing against each defendant.

On November 10, 2014, Olmo's renewed motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis was allowed. See Docket No. 17. Now before the court for screening is his amended complaint. See Docket No. 20. Because Olmo is proceeding pro se, the court reads the amended complaint with "an extra degree of solicitude." Rodi v. Ventetuolo, 941 F.2d 22, 23 (1st Cir. 1991); see also Strahan v. Coxe, 127 F.3d 155, 158 n. 1 (1st Cir. 1997) (noting obligation to construe pro se pleadings liberally) (citing Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972)). However, even under a generous reading, this action is subject to dismissal for the reasons which follow.

DISCUSSION

I. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint

Olmo's amended complaint is a sprawling twenty-five page, somewhat impenetrable, document. See Am. Compl. Olmo unsuccessfully sought legal assistance from over twenty legal organizations. Id. at p. 13. In the amended complaint, Olmo makes several references to his "Court Appointed Law Office, " id. p. 1, however, this court has not appointed counsel for Mr. Olmo.

The case caption identifies 12 defendants consisting of two attorneys, a major law firm, two members of the New York City Police Department, the City of New York and its former mayor, MASD, NYSD and three individuals. Id . The defendants are all located in New York and are alleged to be corrupt politicians, lawyers, law professors, investors, and bureaucrats that conspired to violate plaintiff's rights. Id . Plaintiff specifically alleges violations of the U.S. Constitution and 42 U.S.C. ยง 1985 (conspiracy to interfere with civil rights). Id. at p. 1.

Olmo alleges due process violations related to "public and non-public personnel who have and are intimate in the Investment practices of Mr. Narker, as his business associates of 2013 and 2014, including the Law Offices of Mr. Ed. Stroock - S&S&L, Wachtell Lipton Rosen & Katz and Mr. Rudy W. Giuliani of Giuliani Associates & Bracewell & Co., a former New York City Mayor and USAG of interest are entangled in the misfeasance which produced a violation of [Olmo's] U.S. Constitutional Civil Rights for participational parlance and fraudulent narrative in remill." Id. at p. 2.

A Plaintiff alleges that on August 5, 2012, there
commenced a series of legal transactions for the benefit of John Ivan Olmo from Wchtell Lipton Rosen & Katz after a NYC City Councilmember Christy M. Quinn's election lawyer Jerry H. Goldfeder colluded to "dismemberment" of a project that had national domestic implication. the lawyer of Stroock, Stroock Lavan - S&S&L herein, made an admission of "wrong doing' and $1 million was raised with additional $10 million for benefit of John Ivan Olmo and deposited by Mr. Narker no later than 10/15/2012; this was done so by Mr. Steve Narker a former EVP of Merrill Lynch. The money for the expressed wrong doing was deposited in [plaintiff's] name and was never remitted to [him] after ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.