UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK JAMES LASTRA, Plaintiff, 1:24-CV-2603 (LTS) -against- MILLENIUM DOWNTOWN NEW YORK ORDER OF DISMISSAL HOTEL, Defendant. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiff James Lastra, who is appearing pro se, brings this action under the court’s federal question jurisdiction, asserting claims of violations of his federal constitutional rights under

. He sues the Millenium Downtown New York Hotel. Plaintiff seeks damages, injunctive relief, and declaratory relief. By order dated June 12, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), that is, without prepayment of fees. For the reason set forth below, the Court dismisses this action. STANDARD OF REVIEW The Court must dismiss an IFP 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.

(e)(2)(B); see Livingston v. Adirondack Beverage Co.,

(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,

(2d Cir. 2009), and interpret them to raise the “strongest [claims] that they suggest,” Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons,

(2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted, emphasis in original). But the “special solicitude” in pro se cases,

(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. Rule 8 requires a complaint to include enough facts to state a claim for relief “that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,

(2007). A claim is facially plausible if the plaintiff pleads enough factual detail to allow the Court to draw the inference that the defendant is liable for the alleged misconduct. Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

(2009). In reviewing the complaint, the Court must accept all well-pleaded factual allegations as true.

But it does not have to accept as true “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action,” which are essentially just legal conclusions.

(citing Twombly,

). After separating legal conclusions from well-pleaded factual allegations, the Court must determine

whether those facts make it plausible – not merely possible – that the pleader is entitled to relief.

. BACKGROUND Plaintiff alleges the following: On April 2, 2023, in the Millenium Downtown New York Hotel, in New York, New York, Plaintiff, a citizen of New York, rented a hotel room . . . . While Plaintiff was in the hotel room, Plaintiff was with a female companion/model. At approximately 7pm or so, while [Plaintiff and his companion were] in the hotel room with the door locked[,] an employee of the hotel invaded Plaintiff’s privacy/expectation of privacy by electronically unlocking the []hotel room door without [Plaintiff’s] permission; no knocking, no warning was given. The female companion became ill from the intrusion and although Plaintiff attempted to work out the problem nothing was done. There were video tape cameras in the hotel which Plaintiff will be demanding to be produced through . . . discovery. (ECF 1, at 5.) Plaintiff asserts that he has suffered “emotional distress, humiliation, [and] damage to his reputation.” (Id. at 6.) DISCUSSION A. Claims under

The Court must dismiss Plaintiff’s claims under

. To state a claim of federal constitutional violations under Section 1983, a litigant must allege both that: (1) a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) the right was violated by a person acting under the color of state law, or a “state actor.” See West v. Atkins,

(1988). “The traditional definition of acting under color of state law requires that

the defendant . . . exercise[ ] power possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because the wrongdoer is clothed with the authority of state law.”

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “Because the United States Constitution regulates only the Government, not private parties, [with respect to a claim brought under Section 1983,] a litigant claiming that his constitutional rights have been violated must first establish that the challenged conduct constitutes state action.” Flagg v. Yonkers Sav. & Loan Ass’n,

(2d Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Private parties generally are not state actors and, therefore, are not usually liable under Section 1983. Sykes v. Bank of Am.,

(2d Cir. 2013) (quoting Brentwood Acad. v. Tenn. Secondary Sch. Athletic Ass’n,

(2001)). To the extent that Plaintiff asserts claims under Section 1983 against the Millenium Downtown New York Hotel, a private hotel, Plaintiff alleges no facts showing that that hotel acted as a state actor when it allegedly violated Plaintiff’s federal constitutional rights. The Court therefore dismisses Plaintiff’s claims under Section 1983 for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. See

(e)(2)(B)(ii). B. Leave to amend is denied District courts generally grant a pro se plaintiff an opportunity to amend a complaint to

cure its defects, but leave to amend is not required where it would be futile. See Hill v. Curcione,

(2d Cir. 2011); Salahuddin v. Cuomo,

(2d Cir. 1988). Because the defects in Plaintiff’s complaint cannot be cured with an amendment, the Court declines to grant Plaintiff leave to amend his complaint. CONCLUSION The Court dismisses this action for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted.

(e)(2)(B)(ii). The Court certifies under

(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and, therefore, IFP status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States,

(1962).

The Court directs the Clerk of Court to enter a judgment dismissing this action for the reason set forth in this order. SO ORDERED. Dated: October 7, 2024 New York, New York

/s/ Laura Taylor Swain LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN Chief United States District Judge