Sumpter v. Chartwells et al
| Morris L. Sumpter |
| Chartwells and Compass Group |
| 3:2021cv00081 |
| January 19, 2021 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| Victor A Bolden |
| Sarah A L Merriam |
| Civil Rights: Jobs |
| 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 19, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 15 NOTICE TO COUNSEL/SELF-REPRESENTED PARTIES : Counsel or self-represented parties initiating or removing this action are responsible for serving all parties with attached documents and copies of #5 Electronic Filing Order, #14 Electronic Summons Issued, #2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Morris L. Sumpter, #6 Notice, #1 Complaint filed by Morris L. Sumpter, #3 Order on Pretrial Deadlines, #4 Protective Order Signed by Clerk on 3/19/2021.(Nuzzi, Tiffany) |
| Filing 14 ELECTRONIC SUMMONS ISSUED in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 and LR 4 as to *Chartwells, Compass Group* with answer to complaint due within *21* days. *Morris L. Sumpter* *535 Dixwell Ave* *New Haven, CT 06511*. (Nuzzi, Tiffany) |
Filing 13
ORDER terminating 11 Recommended Ruling, in light of plaintiff having paid the required filing fee. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Sarah A. L. Merriam on 3/18/2021. (Weis, Anne)
|
|
Filing 12
ORDER. Plaintiff has paid the required filing fee. Accordingly, and as set forth in Doc. #11, plaintiff's Complaint may proceed to service of process. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail the pro se service packet to Mr. Sumpter. Plaintiff is advised that he is responsible for ensuring that the Complaint is served on the defendants within ninety days, that is, on or before June 17, 2021. Instructions regarding how to effect service, as well as the necessary forms, are included in the service packet that will be mailed to plaintiff. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Sarah A. L. Merriam on 3/18/2021.(Weis, Anne)
|
| Filing fee received from Morris Sumpter: $ 402.00, receipt number CTXN00022920 (Nuzzi, Tiffany) |
|
Filing 11
RECOMMENDED RULING. The Court has reviewed the Complaint #1 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2) and finds that plaintiff's Complaint alleging discrimination claims under Title VII is sufficient to proceed to service of process. However, the Court recommends that plaintiff's #9 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis be DENIED. Accordingly, plaintiff must pay the required filing fee before the Complaint (Doc. #1 ) may proceed to service of process. On January 19, 2021, plaintiff filed a document entitled "Application for Waiver of Fees/Payment of Costs Civil, Housing, Small Claims, and Appellate," which is a form used in state court, and which was docketed as a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Doc. #2 . On February 3, 2021, the undersigned entered an Order stating: "The Court is not able to determine whether plaintiff meets the standard to proceed without payment of fees and costs in this court, as a matter of federal law, based on the information in the form provided." Doc. #8. The undersigned directed plaintiff to complete and file a Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis using the form provided by the District of Connecticut. See id. On February 22, 2021, plaintiff filed such a Motion, which includes a sworn statement purporting to summarize plaintiff's current financial condition. See Doc. #9 . However, much of the financial information provided is inconsistent with that set forth in the prior state court form, despite the fact that they were filed just a month apart. See Docs. #2 , #9 . For example, on the state court form plaintiff listed his "Total Monthly Income" as $2,400, Doc. #2 at 1, while on the federal form he asserts that his spouse has a gross monthly income of $2,600, and that he receives an additional $610 in unemployment benefits. See Doc. #9 at 3. It is not clear to the Court whether plaintiff receives this $610 in unemployment benefits on a monthly or weekly basis. If plaintiff receives unemployment benefits weekly, which is typical, the family's monthly income would be approximately $5,243. See id. at 3-4. Further, on the state court form, plaintiff reported that his family's monthly expenses totaled $2,660, see Doc. #2 at 1, while on the federal form he claims the family's monthly expenses are $5,119. See Doc. #9 at 4. On the state court form plaintiff indicated he had $410 in cash on hand and in banks, see Doc. #2 at 1; on the federal form plaintiff left the "cash on hand" section completely blank. Doc. #9 at 4. In sum, these submissions are replete with inconsistencies, rendering the Court unable to find plaintiff has met his burden of establishing an inability to pay the Court's filing fee. "Section 1915(a) does not require a litigant to demonstrate absolute destitution[.]" Potnick v. E. State Hosp., 701 F.2d 243, 244 (2d Cir. 1983) (per curiam). However, the Court may properly deny an application where a litigant's "access to [the] court has not been blocked by his financial condition[,]" but rather he is "merely in the position of having to weigh the financial constraints posed" by the filing of the complaint against other concerns. Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Charles W. Sears Real Estate, Inc., 686 F. Supp. 385, 388 (N.D.N.Y. 1988) (citation and quotation marks omitted). "In assessing an application to proceed in forma pauperis, a court may consider the resources that the applicant has... from a spouse[.]" Fridman v. City of New York, 195 F. Supp. 2d 534, 537 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (citation and quotation marks omitted). The Court finds that plaintiffs allegations are not sufficient to establish that plaintiff is unable to pay the ordinary filing fees required by the Court. See 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(1). Accordingly, the Court recommends that plaintiffs Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. #9 ) be DENIED. Plaintiff shall pay the required filing fee on or before March 17, 2021. If plaintiff pays the required filing fee by that date, the Complaint (Doc. #1 ) will be permitted to proceed to service of process. This is a recommended ruling. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(1). If plaintiff objects to this Recommend Ruling, he must file an objection with the Clerk of the Court by no later than March 17, 2021. Failure to file an objection by that deadline will preclude appellate review. See 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1); Rules 72, 6(a) and 6(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 72.2(a); F.D.I.C. v. Hillcrest Assoc., 66 F.3d 566, 569 (2d Cir. 1995); Small v. Secretary of H.H.S., 892 F.2d 15 (2d Cir. 1989) (per curiam). Plaintiff is advised that failure to pay the required filing fee or file an objection by March 17, 2021 may lead to the dismissal of this action. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Sarah A. L. Merriam on 2/25/2021.(Weis, Anne)
|
|
Filing 10
ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Sarah A. L. Merriam including #9 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis and for initial review of the Complaint #1 pursuant to 28 USC 1915. Signed by Judge Victor A. Bolden on 2/25/2021. Motions referred to Judge Sarah A. L. Merriam(Perez, J.)
|
| Filing 9 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Morris L. Sumpter. (Freberg, B) |
| Set Deadlines: Dismissal due by 2/24/2021 (Perez, J.) |
|
Filing 8
ORDER. Plaintiff has filed a document entitled "Application for Waiver of Fees/Payment of Costs Civil, Housing, Small Claims, and Appellate" which is a form used in the Connecticut Superior Court (state court). See Doc. #2 . The Clerk's Office has docketed this as a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court is not able to determine whether plaintiff meets the standard to proceed without payment of fees and costs in this court, as a matter of federal law, based on the information in the form provided. Plaintiff shall complete and file a Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis using the form provided by the District of Connecticut. A copy of the form is attached hereto, and will be provided to the plaintiff by mail with this Order. The form is also available on the District of Connecticut website at https://www.ctd.uscourts.gov/forms/motion-leave-proceed-forma-pauperis. Plaintiff shall file the completed form by February 24, 2021. Failure to file the Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis form as required may result in dismissal of this action. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Sarah A. L. Merriam on 2/3/2021.(Weis, Anne)
|
|
Filing 7
ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Sarah A. L. Merriam including #2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis and for initial review of the Complaint #1 pursuant to 28 USC 1915. Signed by Judge Victor A. Bolden on 1/22/2021.Motions referred to Judge Sarah A. L. Merriam(Perez, J.)
|
|
Filing 4
STANDING PROTECTIVE ORDER Signed by Judge Victor A. Bolden on 1/19/2021.(Nuzzi, Tiffany)
|
| Filing 6 NOTICE re Initial Discovery Protocols Signed by Clerk on 1/19/2021. (Attachments: #1 Discovery Attachment A, #2 Discovery Attachment B)(Nuzzi, Tiffany) |
|
Filing 5
ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER FOR COUNSEL - PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER Signed by Judge Victor A. Bolden on 1/19/2021.(Nuzzi, Tiffany)
|
|
Filing 3
Order on Pretrial Deadlines: Amended Pleadings due by 3/20/2021 Discovery due by 7/21/2021 Dispositive Motions due by 8/25/2021 Signed by Clerk on 1/19/2021.(Nuzzi, Tiffany)
|
| Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Morris L. Sumpter. (Nuzzi, Tiffany) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Chartwells, Compass Group, filed by Morris L. Sumpter.(Nuzzi, Tiffany) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Connecticut District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
