Panthong Praseuth v. Thomas C. Werbe, 99 F.3d 402 (2d Cir. 1995). · Go Syfert
Search
Panthong Praseuth v. Thomas C. Werbe, 99 F.3d 402 (2d Cir. 1995). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“argument that the correction officers should have intervened to stop the fight, for example, is not persuasive. prison officials have no duty to put their own safety at risk to stop an altercation between inmates.”
69 citation events (33 in the last 25 years) across 9 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Wright v. DeMoura (mad, 2025-03-27)
Treatment trajectory · 1972 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1972 1999 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 14 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Wright v. DeMoura
D. Mass. · 2025 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
mistake is insufficient to support a claim of retaliation.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Ayyaz v. New York Police Department
S.D.N.Y. · 2021 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
the elements of an equal protection sexual harassment claim are not coextensive with the elements of a title vii sexual harassment claim.
examined Cited as authority (quoted) Velez v. City of New York
S.D.N.Y. · 2019 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
argument that the correction officers should have intervened to stop the fight, for example, is not persuasive. prison officials have no duty to put their own safety at risk to stop an altercation between inmates.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Perks v. Town of Huntington (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
E.D.N.Y · 2003 · confidence medium
Shanes-Hernandez, 99 F.3d at 402 (holding that, at least as of 1995, a reasonable person would have known of Section 1983 standards relating to sexual harassment); cf. Blakeslee v. Ruffo, 213 F.3d 625 (2d Cir.2000) (unpublished opinion) (stating that a reasonable person would not have known of standards between 1985 and 1987 because that period preceded the Carerro opinion).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. David Hansberry
6th Cir. · 2019 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Delano, 99 F.3d 402 , at *1 (2d Cir. 1995) (unpublished table decision) (explaining that no “double count[ing]” occurred under U.S.S.G. §§ 2C1.1(b) and 3B1.1(c) because “these sections concern different aspects of . . . criminal conduct”).
discussed Cited "see" Dallio v. Hebert
N.D.N.Y. · 2009 · signal: accord · confidence high
See Prezzi v. Schelter, 469 F.2d 691, 692 (2d Cir.1972) (extra liberal pleading standard set forth in Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 , 92 S.Ct. 594 , 30 L.Ed.2d 652 [1972], did not save pro se complaint from dismissal for failing to comply with Fed.R.Civ.P. 8); accord, Shoemaker v. State of Cal., 101 F.3d 108 (2d Cir.1996) (citing Prezzi v. Schelter, 469 F.2d 691 ) [unpublished disposition cited only to acknowledge the continued precedential effect of Prezzi v. Schelter, 469 F.2d 691 , within the Second Circuit]; accord, Praseuth v. Werbe, 99 F.3d 402 (2d Cir.1995). 29 .
discussed Cited "see" Vega v. Artus
N.D.N.Y. · 2009 · signal: accord · confidence high
P. 8); accord, Shoemaker v. State of Cal., 101 F.3d 108 (2d Cir.1996) (citing Prezzi v. Schelter, 469 F.2d 691 ) [unpublished disposition cited only to acknowledge the continued precedential effect of Prezzi v. Schelter, 469 F.2d 691 , within the Second Circuit]; accord, Praseuth v. Werbe, 99 F.3d 402 (2d Cir.1995). 10 .
discussed Cited "see" Cusamano v. Sobek
N.D.N.Y. · 2009 · signal: accord · confidence high
See Prezzi v. Schelter, 469 F.2d 691, 692 (2d Cir. 1972) (extra liberal pleading standard set forth in Haines v. Kernmer, 404 U.S. 519 , 92 S.Ct. 594 , 30 L.Ed.2d 652 [1972], did not save pro se complaint from dismissal for failing to comply with Fed.R.Civ.P. 8); accord, Shoemaker v. State of Cal., 101 F.3d 108 (2d Cir. 1996) (citing Prezzi v. Schelter, 469 F.2d 691 ) [unpublished disposition cited only to acknowledge the continued precedential effect of Prezzi v. Schelter, 469 F.2d 691 , within the Second Circuit]; accord, Praseuth v. Werbe, 99 F.3d 402 (2d Cir. 1995). 85 .
discussed Cited "see" Pandozy v. Segan
S.D.N.Y. · 2007 · signal: see · confidence high
See Praseuth v. Werbe, 99 F.3d 402 (2d Cir.1995) (“Failure to comply with Rule 8(a) may result in dismissal of a complaint, even if the pleader is proceeding pro se.”) (citing Prezzi v. Schelter, 469 F.2d 691, 692 (2d Cir.1972)).
discussed Cited "see" Saidin v. New York City Department of Education (2×)
S.D.N.Y. · 2007 · signal: see · confidence high
See Praseuth v. Werbe, 99 F.3d 402 , 1995 WL 746946 (2d Cir.1995) (“Failure to comply with Rule 8(a) may result in dismissal of a complaint, even if the pleader is proceeding pro se.”) (citing Prezzi v. Schelter, 469 F.2d 691, 692 (2d Cir.1972)).
discussed Cited "see" McGrath v. Nassau Health Care Corp. (2×)
E.D.N.Y · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
See Shanes-Hernandez, 1995 WL 749491 , at *1, 99 F.3d 402 ; Annis, 36 F.3d at 254 .
cited Cited "see, e.g." In the Matter of M.M.
2d Cir. · 2022 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Loren v. State of New York., 99 F.3d 402 , 1995 WL 763009, at *1 (2d Cir. 1995) (unpublished disposition) (“Loren’s prospective claims against the . . .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Rodriguez v. Danbury
D. Conn. · 2019 · signal: see also · confidence low
Hayut, 352 F.3d at 744; see also Shanes-Hernandez v. Clementoni, 99 F.3d 402 (2d Cir. 1995) (unpublished disposition) (“[B]ecause we find that the evidence was sufficient to sustain a jury verdict for appellee for sexual harassment under Title VII, we necessarily find that the sexual harassment verdict was proper under the Equal Protection Clause.”); Petrosky v. N.Y.
cited Cited "see, e.g." Lopez v. Reynolds
W.D.N.Y. · 1997 · signal: see also · confidence low
See, e.g., Franco v. Kelly, supra; Morello v. James, 810 F.2d 344 , 347 (2d Cir.1987); see also Lakram v. Coughlin, 99 F.3d 402 , 1995 WL 763017 (2d Cir. December 27, 1995) (unpublished disposition).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Panthong Praseuth
v.
Thomas C. Werbe
95-7449.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Dec 15, 1995.
99 F.3d 402
Cited by 4 opinions  |  Unpublished
3 passages pin-cited by 3 cases
Pinpoint authority: bottom 92%
Citer courts: S.D. New York (2) · D. Massachusetts (1)

99 F.3d 402

NOTICE: THIS SUMMARY ORDER MAY NOT BE CITED AS PRECEDENTIAL AUTHORITY, BUT MAY BE CALLED TO THE ATTENTION OF THE COURT IN A SUBSEQUENT STAGE OF THIS CASE, IN A RELATED CASE, OR IN ANY CASE FOR PURPOSES OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL OR RES JUDICATA. SEE SECOND CIRCUIT RULE 0.23.
Panthong PRASEUTH, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Thomas C. WERBE, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 95-7449.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Dec. 15, 1995.

APPEARING FOR APPELLANT: PANTHONG PRASEUTH, PRO SE PETITIONER

APPEARING FOR APPELLEE: THOMAS WERBE

E.D.N.Y.

AFFIRMED.

Before WALKER, JACOBS and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of record from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Ross, J.), and was argued.

ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of said district court be and it hereby is AFFIRMED.

Plaintiff-appellant Panthong Praseuth, who is proceeding pro se, appeals from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Ross, J.), dismissing his complaint without prejudice to repleading within sixty days.

1

On May 12, 1994, Praseuth filed a complaint against Thomas Werbe. Appellant's complaint, which is virtually incomprehensible, appears to allege that Werbe defrauded two individuals, Duang Keophilia and Khaniphant Sanoubane, by mailing them an application for a credit line without their permission. On March 8, 1995, the district court granted defendant Werbe's motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to provide a short and plain statement of the claim as required by Rule 8(a). The district court further ordered that the case be dismissed without prejudice to repleading within sixty days and instructed appellant on how to meet the standing requirement and properly serve the complaint.

2

We review de novo the district court's dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) and, "taking all the plaintiff's factual allegations as true, we will affirm only where no set of facts could support [his] claim." Annis v. County of Westchester, 36 F.3d 251, 253 (2d Cir.1994) (citation omitted). Additionally, we review de novo the question of standing. Comer v. Cisneros, 37 F.3d 775, 787 (2d Cir.1994). Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which sets forth the general rules of pleading claims for relief, states that a complaint shall contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Failure to comply with Rule 8(a) may result in dismissal of a complaint, even if the pleader is proceeding pro se. Prezzi v. Schelter, 469 F.2d 691, 692 (2d Cir.1972), cert. denied, 411 U.S. 935 (1973).

3

Praseuth's complaint does not satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a). Because Praseuth "failed to supply a comprehensible complaint," the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing his complaint without prejudice. See Becker v. Adams Drug Co., 819 F.2d 32, 33 (2d Cir.1987). Moreover, appellant does not have standing to sue in this action. A plaintiff must have suffered a "distinct and palpable injury to himself," Gladstone Realtors v. Village of Bellwood, 441 U.S. 91, 100 (1979), yet Praseuth is apparently acting on behalf of individuals who received fraudulent letters and does not seek redress for his own injury. Appellant cannot establish himself as a "next friend" of these persons unless he demonstrates that they are "unable to litigate [their] own cause due to mental incapacity, lack of access to the court, or other similar disability." Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 165 (1990). Also absent is evidence that Praseuth is "truly dedicated to the best interest of the person[s] on whose behalf he seeks to litigate." Id. at 163. Because appellant has not established himself as a "next friend" under the Whitmore test, he has no standing to seek compensation for the alleged injury.

4

For the reasons set forth above, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.