Ramjas v. Kersh et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-----------------------------------------------------------------x
RAJIV P. RAMJAS,
Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
-against- 	25-CV-6629 (OEM) (MMH)
TAMARA KERSH; FIONA MORGAN; JAMES
MACHETTI; TERRY SHIRLINE; GEICO
INDEMNITY CORP.; NASSAU REHABILITATION
CENTER; JEEP DODGE RAM; CARRIAGE HOUSE
COLLISION; HERTZ CORPORATION; and USPS,
Defendants.
-----------------------------------------------------------------x
ORELIA E. MERCHANT, United States District Judge:
On November 12, 2025, pro se plaintiff Rajiv P. Ramjas (“Plaintiff”) filed this action in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against defendants Tamara Kersh,
Fiona Morgan, James Machetti, Terry Shirline, Geico Indemnity Corp., Nassau Rehabilitation
Center, Jeep Dodge Ram, Carriage House Collision, Hertz Corporation, and USPS (individually,
“Defendant”; collectively, “Defendants”). See generally Complaint, Dkt. 1 (the “Complaint” or
“Compl.”). That same day, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. See generally Application to Proceed Without Prepaying Fees or Costs, Dkt.
2 (the “IFP Motion”). 	On November 19, 2025, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York Judge Laura Taylor Swain issued an order transferring this action to U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York, see Transfer Order, Dkt. 5, and on December 1, 2025, the
transfer was effectuated.
Plaintiff’s IFP Motion is granted and, for the reasons stated below, the Complaint is
dismissed without prejudice. 	Plaintiff may file an amended complaint within 30 days from the
date of this order.
Case 1:25-cv-06629-OEM-LKE Document 7 Filed 01/05/26 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed a form complaint for civil action on November 12, 2025, which broadly
appears to concern a January 22, 2025, rear-end automobile collision on the Long Island
Expressway and a March 21, 2025, automobile collision with a fire hydrant in the Bayside
neighborhood of Queens, as well as related car insurance, medical care, car repair, and rental car
matters arising between January and August 2025. See generally Compl. Asked to state briefly
the facts supporting his case, Plaintiff submits several pages concerning a series of difficult-to-
follow events from which the following excerpts are extracted:
I was in an accident rear ended on 1/25. I was denied medical care from Northwell
released w/ out shoes. 	after my plate was used over Bridge + tunnels LNJ7521
CRV 2005 which was total loss @ Conti Collision on 1/22/25. 	My policy after
getting a new one @ Jeep got cancelled for false accusations. I never consented to
a recorded call from unknown person named Priya Rajapa. Upon LSF 7502 hit a
hydrant a police report was made that I rear ended someone – leading my rental to
get stolen from J-d Towing 1155TT N.Y Plate. 6/5/25 Terry Shirline took car back
throwing my mother whos 74 on floor at 4 am in Aug 2025 after failing to fix it.
. . .
That they have no paper work and I paid 3 times by giving this dealer a direct
deposit form b/c he said it would help my credit only to harm it. Speaking to Nassau
Correction officers Kylie Seca invades my HIPPA Act decides to harass me @
hospitals 	outpatient 	psychiatrist 	+ 	primary 	care 	doctors 	for 	advantage 	at
prescriptions. 	Plats on Jeep when taken came from large brokerage KWT 9689
which told me a 90 day policy was suddenly 60 days + they changed rules. This is
discrim, harass on all behalfs.
Compl. at 5, 7-9.1
Plaintiff references the injuries that he suffered in the accident and that “USPS failed to
register mailbox violating Bank Secrecy Act 1974 Fair Credit Reporting Act Am. Honda
Financial.” Id. at 7. 	In addition to these laws, Plaintiff references “Privacy Invasion, 15 th , 16th
Amendments” and his “Lifetime Warranty on all Geico xpress claims.” 	Id. at 2. 	He seeks
1 The Complaint’s page numbers referenced herein are located in the Complaint’s auto-generated ECF header.
Case 1:25-cv-06629-OEM-LKE Document 7 Filed 01/05/26 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
damages, “total replacement with new insurance,” and his “criminal case overturned through
appeal in Nassau + Queens.” Id. at 7.
LEGAL STANDARD
When reviewing an action filed in forma pauperis, the Court must dismiss a complaint sua
sponte if it determines that the suit “(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 on which relief may be
granted where it does not plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “A claim is plausible ‘when the plaintiff
pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is
liable for the misconduct alleged.’” 	Matson v. Bd. of Educ., 631 F.3d 57, 63 (2d Cir. 2011)
(quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)). Although all allegations contained in the
complaint are assumed to be true, this tenet is “inapplicable to legal conclusions.” Iqbal, 556 U.S.
at 678.
Further, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 (“Rule 8”) requires a plaintiff to provide a “short
and plain statement” of his claim against each named defendant so that they have adequate notice
of the claims against them. F ED. R. C IV. P. 8(a)(2); see Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (“Rule 8 . . . demands
more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.”). A complaint that
only “tenders ‘naked assertion[s]’ devoid of ‘further factual enhancement’” will not suffice. 	Id.
(quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557 (alteration in original)). 	At a minimum, a complaint must
“disclose sufficient information to permit the defendant ‘to have a fair understanding of what the
plaintiff is complaining about and to know whether there is a legal basis for recovery.’” Kittay v.
Kornstein, 230 F.3d 531, 541 (2d Cir. 2000) (quoting Ricciuti v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth., 941 F.2d 119,
Case 1:25-cv-06629-OEM-LKE Document 7 Filed 01/05/26 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
123 (2d Cir. 1991)). A court is empowered to dismiss a complaint on its own initiative where the
complaint does not comply with Rule 8. Id.
With that said, a pro se complaint must “be liberally construed” and “held to less stringent
standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007)
(per curiam) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)). 	“Even after Twombly,” the
Court “remain[s] obligated to construe a pro se complaint liberally.” Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66,
72 (2d Cir. 2009). Nevertheless, the “basic requirements of Rule 8 apply to self-represented and
counseled plaintiffs alike.” Harnage v. Lightner, 916 F. 3d 138, 141 (2d Cir. 2019) (per curiam)
(quoting Wynder v. McMahon, 360 F.3d 73, 79 n.11 (2d Cir. 2004)).
DISCUSSION
Even construed liberally, the Complaint fails to meet basic pleading requirements.
Specifically, it fails to provide a “short and plain” statement of Plaintiff’s claims against each
named Defendant such that each Defendant has a “fair understanding of what the plaintiff is
complaining about and to know whether there is a legal basis for recovery.” Id. (first quoting FED.
R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2); then quoting Kittay, 230 F.3d at 541). 	Plaintiff appears to seek relief from
individuals and entities who were involved in his attempts to repair and replace his car and obtain
car insurance after two 2025 automobile accidents, but the Complaint does not suggest a basis for
relief or whether such relief is within this Court’s power to consider. 	See Compl. 	Although the
Complaint references the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution
and the Fair Credit Reporting Act, these authorities are untethered to the facts asserted in the
Complaint, such that, even read liberally, the Court cannot connect them. 	The Court therefore
does not find that Plaintiff’s allegations state a plausible claim for relief. See Hall v. N.Y.C. Hous.
Dep’t, 22-cv-06692 (HG) (SJB), 2022 WL 17253530, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 28, 2022) (dismissing
Case 1:25-cv-06629-OEM-LKE Document 7 Filed 01/05/26 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
a pro se complaint where the court was “unable to determine exactly what claims [p]laintiff [was]
attempting to allege”).
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s action is dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); FED. R. C IV. P.
8(a)(2). 	In light of Plaintiff’s pro se status, Plaintiff is granted 30 days to file an amended
complaint. See Cruz v. Gomez, 202 F.3d 593, 596-97 (2d Cir. 2000).
If Plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, Plaintiff must identify each legal claim
and set forth a short, plain statement of the relevant facts supporting each claim. Plaintiff should
describe what each named Defendant or Defendants did or did not do, and how each Defendant
caused Plaintiff injury. Plaintiff must also provide the dates and locations for each relevant event.
Finally, Plaintiff must set forth the remedy he seeks. Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint
completely replaces the Complaint; therefore, all claims Plaintiff wishes to pursue must be in the
amended complaint. 	The amended complaint must be captioned “Amended Complaint” and
include docket number 25-CV-6629 (OEM) (LKE). 	For free, confidential, limited-scope legal
assistance, Plaintiff may wish to contact the City Bar Justice Center’s Federal Pro Se Legal
Assistance 	Project 	in 	Brooklyn 	by 	calling 	(212) 	382-4729 	or 	online 	at 	https://www.
citybarjusticecenter.org/projects/federal-pro-se-legal-assistance-project. 	The 	Federal 	Pro 	Se
Legal Assistance Project is not a part of, or affiliated with, the Court.
Any amended complaint that Plaintiff elects to file will be reviewed for sufficiency. No
summons shall issue at this time, and all further proceedings shall be stayed. If Plaintiff fails to
file an amended complaint within 30 days of the date of the entry of this order, judgment shall be
entered.
Case 1:25-cv-06629-OEM-LKE Document 7 Filed 01/05/26 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken
in good faith and, therefore, denies in forma pauperis status for the purpose of any appeal.
Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).
The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to send a copy of this order to Plaintiff and to
note the mailing on the docket.
SO ORDERED.
/s/
ORELIA E. MERCHANT
United States District Judge
January 5, 2026
Brooklyn, New York
Case 1:25-cv-06629-OEM-LKE Document 7 Filed 01/05/26 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>