Andrews v. Hall
| Jeffrey Andrews |
| Janet C. Hall |
| 3:2022cv00280 |
| February 18, 2022 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| Michael P Shea |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on April 8, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 10
ORDER. The plaintiff's #9 motion for reconsideration of the Court's order dismissing this case is hereby DENIED. "The standard for granting [a motion for reconsideration] is strict, and reconsideration will generally be denied unless the moving party can point to controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked--matters, in other words, that might reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion reached by the court." Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995) (citations omitted); see also D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 7(c)1 (stating that motions for reconsideration "will generally be denied unless the movant can point to controlling decision or data that the court overlooked in the initial decision or order"). The plaintiff has identified no such decisions or data. In fact, the plaintiff acknowledges in his motion that "[b]oth Judge Janet C. Hall and Judge S. Dave Vatti were in fact acting in official capacity, within the judicial system and within their jurisdiction" and states that Judges Hall and Vatti "while performing their judicial duties, in official capacities, violated Plaintiff's enumerated and unenumerated United States Constitutional Rights...". ECF No. 9 at 1, 2. As the Court has already explained, judges have immunity from suits for damages for their judicial actions where the challenged actions were judicial in nature and not taken in the absence of jurisdiction. ECF No. 6. The plaintiff's arguments regarding qualified immunity and the merits of his claims are irrelevant to the question of whether judicial immunity bars this suit. Judicial immunity is different -- and generally broader -- than qualified immunity, and Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration only confirms that it applies here; as for the merits, if the plaintiff disagrees with Judge Hall's or Judge Vatti's rulings, his remedy is to file an appeal from those rulings. Signed by Judge Michael P. Shea on 4/8/2022. (Silva, Madeline)
|
| Filing 9 MOTION for Reconsideration re 8 Order, by Jeffrey Andrews. (Imbriani, Susan) |
|
Filing 8
ORDER. The Court has reviewed the plaintiff's response to the Court's order to show cause (ECF No. 7). The plaintiff's response does not argue that Judge Hall's issuance of the preliminary injunction was not "judicial in nature," nor that she lacked jurisdiction to issue the preliminary injunction. Rather, it argues the merits of the plaintiff's case before Judge Hall, citing his motion to dismiss in that case and stating that Judge Hall's issuance of the injunction violated his constitutional rights. The plaintiff has, therefore, failed to show cause why judicial immunity does not apply in this suit. Accordingly, this case is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice.Signed by Judge Michael P. Shea on 3/28/2022. (Silva, Madeline)
|
| Filing 7 RESPONSE TO 6 Order To Show Case filed by Jeffrey Andrews. (Attachments: #1 Attachment)(Carr, Dave) |
| Set Deadlines: Show Cause Response due by 3/18/2022 (Johnson, D.) |
|
Filing 6
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Judicial immunity appears to apply this this action. The complaint alleges that Judge Hall's issuance of a preliminary injunction "on Plaintiff's 15 acres of Private Farm Property," ECF No. 1 at 5, violated the plaintiff's constitutional rights. "It is well settled that judges generally have absolute immunity from suits for money damages for their judicial actions." Bliven v. Hunt, 579 F.3d 204, 209 (2d Cir. 2009). Such immunity applies if the challenged action "is judicial in nature" and was "not taken in the complete absence of jurisdiction." Huminski v. Corsones, 36 F.3d 53, 75 (2d. Cir. 2005). Judge Hall's issuance of a preliminary injunction was "judicial in nature," and there is no indication that she lacked jurisdiction to order the injunction. Accordingly, it appears this action should be dismissed. See Fitzgerald v. E. Seventh St. Tenants Corp., 221 F.3d 362, 364 (2d Cir. 2000) (holding that "district courts may dismiss a frivolous complaint sua sponte even when the plaintiff has paid the required filing fee"). In addition, the claim asserted in this case appears identical to those alleged in the plaintiff's earlier-filed cases at Docket Numbers 3:22-cv-00267-MPS and 3:22-cv-00269-MPS. The plaintiff is directed to show cause, via a notice filed to the docket no later than March 18, 2022, why the Court should not dismiss this case as frivolous because the defendant is immune from suit and because the claim asserted has already been raised in two earlier-filed lawsuits by this plaintiff against the same defendant. If no such notice is filed, the Court will dismiss this case with prejudice.Signed by Judge Michael P. Shea on 2/23/2022. (Silva, Madeline)
|
| Filing 5 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 #4 Electronic Filing Order, #3 Protective Order, #1 Complaint filed by Jeffrey Andrews, #2 Order on Pretrial Deadlines Signed by Clerk on 2/22/2022.(Imbriani, Susan) |
|
Filing 4
ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER FOR COUNSEL - PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER Signed by Judge Michael P. Shea on 2/18/2022.(Imbriani, Susan)
|
|
Filing 3
STANDING PROTECTIVE ORDER Signed by Judge Michael P. Shea on 2/18/2022.(Imbriani, Susan)
|
|
Filing 2
Order on Pretrial Deadlines: Amended Pleadings due by 4/19/2022, Discovery due by 8/20/2022, Dispositive Motions due by 9/24/2022. Signed by Clerk on 2/18/2022.(Imbriani, Susan)
|
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Janet C. Hall, filed by Jeffrey Andrews.(Imbriani, Susan) |
| Filing fee received from Jeff Andrews: $ 402, receipt number 783578 (Imbriani, Susan) |
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
| Search for this case: Andrews v. Hall | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Jeffrey Andrews | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: Janet C. Hall | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
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.
