Padilla v. United States District Court et al
| Ismael Padilla |
| United States District Court and U.S. Dept of Justice |
| 3:2023cv00072 |
| January 19, 2023 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| Sarala V Nagala |
| Robert A Richardson |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 10, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 8
ORDER. The Court has received and reviewed Plaintiff's Notice (ECF No. 7) and has interpreted it as a motion for reconsideration of the order dismissing this case. "The standard for granting [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." Van Buskirk v. United Grp. of Cos., Inc., 935 F.3d 49, 54 (2d Cir. 2019); see also D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 7(c)1; Cho v. Blackberry Ltd., 991 F.3d 155, 170 (2d Cir. 2021) (cleaned up) (reconsideration warranted "only when the party identifies an intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice). A motion for reconsideration is "not a vehicle for relitigating old issues, presenting the case under new theories, securing a rehearing on the merits, or otherwise taking a second bite at the apple." Analytical Surveys, Inc. v. Tonga Partners, L.P., 684 F.3d 36, 52 (2d Cir. 2012) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).Nothing in the Plaintiff's motion points to any law or facts that the Court overlooked, or a change in the law that would render the Court's initial decision incorrect. Plaintiff claims that 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(g), the so-called "three strikes rule," is unconstitutional. This argument is irrelevant because this case was dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915A, which requires the court to review, "as soon as practicable after docketing," a complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity, to determine if the complaint is "frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted." In any event, the Second Circuit has held that Section 1915(g) is not unconstitutional. Polanco v. Hopkins, 510 F.3d 152, 156 (2d Cir. 2007). Thus, the Court denies Plaintiff's request for reconsideration. As this case was closed on January 24, 2023, the Court will not accept or consider further filings in this matter. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 3/10/23. (Marks, Joshua)
|
| Filing 7 NOTICE by Ismael Padilla. (Attachments: #1 Envelope) (Mendez, D) |
|
Filing 6
ORDER. Plaintiff, Ismael Padilla, is a state prisoner incarcerated in Texas. On many prior occasions, courts have summarily dismissed lawsuits that Plaintiff has filed in the District of Connecticut on the ground that Plaintiff filed suit in the wrong federal district. See, e.g., Padilla v. Wade, 3:22-cv-1556, ECF No. 6 (D. Conn. Dec. 8, 2022); Padilla v. Tex. Prison Sys., 3:22-cv-1004, ECF No. 6 (D. Conn. Aug. 12, 2022); Padilla v. Tex. Bd. of Paroles, 3:22-cv-596, ECF No. 5 (D. Conn. Aug. 9, 2022); Padilla v. Parole Dept Dir., No. 3:22-cv-416, ECF No. 8 (D. Conn. Aug. 11, 2022).In the case at hand, Plaintiff brings suit against the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas and the U.S. Department of Justice. ECF No. #1 at 1. Plaintiff appears to allege that the Northern District of Texas colluded with the U.S. Department of Justice when declining to accept filings in habeas corpus cases that Plaintiff sought to litigate in the Northern District of Texas. Id. at 3-4. It is not clear to the Court whether Plaintiff intends to pursue tort claims, or habeas relief, through the filing of his current complaint. But Plaintiff is currently incarcerated in the state of Texas, and he does not allege that wrongdoing occurred in the state of Connecticut or that he has been convicted of a crime in the state of Connecticut. Thus, there appears to be no basis for Plaintiff to bring this suit in the District of Connecticut. Accordingly, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915A, the complaint is dismissed with prejudice to refiling in this District. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 01/24/2023. (Kuegler, Adam)
|
|
Filing 5
ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER FOR COUNSEL - PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 1/19/2023. (Mendez, D)
|
|
Filing 4
STANDING PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 1/19/2023. (Mendez, D)
|
| Filing 3 Notice: Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1 and Local Rule 7.1, any nongovernmental corporate party must electronically file a disclosure statement that identifies any parent corporation and any publicly held corporation owning 10% or more of its stock or states that there is no such corporation. Such disclosure statement must be filed with a party's first appearance, pleading, petition, motion, response, or other request addressed to the Court and must be supplemented if any required information changes during the case. Signed by Clerk on 1/19/2023.(Sichanh, Christina) |
|
Filing 2
ORDER: We received your Complaint which has been assigned case number 23cv00072. In order to proceed, the filing fee or a Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis must be submitted to the Court by 2/18/2023 or the case will be subject to dismissal. Fee information and the Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis form may be found on the Court's website at ctd.uscourts.gov. Dismissal due by 2/18/2023 Signed by Clerk on 1/19/2023.(Sichanh, Christina)
|
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Department of Justice, United States District Court, filed by Ismael Padilla. (Attachments: #1 Envelope)(Sichanh, Christina) |
| Judge Sarala V. Nagala and Judge Robert A. Richardson added. (Freberg, B) |
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.
