Ciriello v. Connecticut Judicial Branch
| Mark S. Ciriello |
| State of Connecticut Judicial Branch and Prudential Insurance Company of America |
| 3:2021cv00846 |
| June 21, 2021 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| Victor A Bolden |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on July 12, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 4 AMENDED COMPLAINT against Prudential Insurance Company of America, filed by Mark S. Ciriello. (Attachments: #1 envelope)(Imbriani, Susan) |
| Set Deadlines: Amended Pleadings due by 7/23/2021. (Perez, J.) |
Filing 3
ORDER denying #1 Motion for Leave to File. The Court interprets Mr. Ciriello's filing to be a Complaint. See Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474 (2d Cir. 2006) ("It is well established that the submissions of a pro se litigant must be construed liberally and interpreted to raise the strongest arguments that they suggest." (internal quotation marks omitted)). However, "[w]hen a complaint does not comply with the requirement that it be short and plain, the court has the power to, on its own initiative,... dismiss the complaint." Salahuddin v. Cuomo, 861 F.2d 40, 42 (2d Cir. 1988) (holding district courts may sua sponte dismiss "those cases in which the complaint is so confused, ambiguous, vague, or otherwise unintelligible that its true substance, if any, is well disguised"). As Mr. Ciriello's filing fails to comply with Rule 8's requirement of "a short and plain statement of the claim," Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), the Court denies his motion for leave to file, see also Dietz v. Bouldin, 136 S. Ct. 1885, 1892 (2016) ("[D]istrict courts have the inherent authority to manage their dockets and courtrooms with a view toward the efficient and expedient resolution of cases."). Mr. Ciriello has until July 23, 2021 to replead in compliance with the Federal Rules, and submit an amended complaint which only briefly describes his alleged injuries, and identify those individuals who allegedly caused them. If Mr. Ciriello does not file a "short and plain" amended complaint, and instead once again files an unduly lengthy pleading with extraneous materials, then this case will be dismissed with prejudice. See Salahuddin, 861 F.2d at 42 ("When the court chooses to dismiss, it normally grants leave to file an amended pleading that conforms to the requirements of Rule 8."); Hudson v. Artuz, No. 95 CIV. 4768 (JSR), 1998 WL 832708, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 30, 1998) (dismissing without prejudice a pro se litigant's complaint for failure to comply with Rule 8 and Rule 10 and providing thirty days for the litigant to replead). Signed by Judge Victor A. Bolden on 6/24/2021. (Shaffer, Chelsea)
|
| Filing fee received from Mark S. Ciriello: $ 402.00, receipt number CTXH00018119 (Peterson, M) |
|
Filing 2
ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER FOR COUNSEL - PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER Signed by Judge Victor A. Bolden on 06/21/2021.(Fazekas, J.)
|
| Filing 1 MOTION for Leave to File by Mark S. Ciriello. (Attachments: #1 Complaint-Part 1, #2 Complaint-Part 2, #3 Complaint-Part 3, #4 Complaint-Part 4, #5 Complaint-Part 5, #6 Complaint-Part 6, #7 Complaint-Part 7, #8 Complaint-Part 8, #9 Complaint-Part 9, #10 Complaint-Part 10, #11 Complaint-Part 11, #12 Complaint-Part 12, #13 Complaint-Part 13)(Fazekas, J.) |
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.
