Monroe v. New Neighborhoods, Inc. et al
| Timothy C. Monroe |
| New Neighborhoods, Inc., City of Bridgeport, State of Connecticut, Department of Corrections, HUD Equal Opportunities Housing, Optimus Health Care, Charlotte Hungerford Hospital, Housing Authority of Bridgeport, CT and St. Vincent Hospital |
| 3:2023cv00260 |
| February 27, 2023 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| Victor A Bolden |
| Robert M Spector |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on April 25, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 15
ORDER finding as moot #2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; finding as moot #11 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; finding as moot #13 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. In light of Court's Ruling and Order dismissing this case, see ECF No. 14, motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, #2 , #11 and #13 are DENIED as moot. Signed by Judge Victor A. Bolden on 4/25/2023. (Diallo, I.)
|
|
Filing 14
ORDER adopting #9 Recommended Ruling Dismissing the Complaint. On February 27, 2022, Mr. Monroe filed a Complaint naming various defendants, including the City of Bridgeport, the state of Connecticut HUD Equal Opportunities Housing. See Compl. at 1-2, ECF No. 1 ("Compl."). Along with his Complaint, Mr. Monroe also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP"). See Pl.'s Mot. to Proceed IFP, EFC No. 2 ("IFP Mot."). On March 7, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Robert Spector issued a Ruling recommending that the Court deny Mr. Monroe's IFP motion and to dismiss Mr. Monroe's Complaint. See Recommended Ruling at 5, ECF No. #9 (noting that that the "factual assertions" in the Complaint "are largely unintelligible," and that Mr. Monroe does not provide sufficient fact to "invoke the Court's subject matter jurisdiction"); id. at 6 (noting further that "the Complaint failed to give an inference of which defendants might be liable for the myriad [of] harms alleged[]"). Judge Spector recommended that the Court permit Mr. Monroe to file an "Amended Complaint that sets forth a clear statement of the jurisdiction and facts supporting his claims against each of the defendants by April 7, 2023." Id. at 7.On March 16, 2023, Mr. Monroe filed his first Amended Complaint. See Am. Compl., ECF No. 12 ("First Am. Compl."). Although Mr. Monroe provides some additional facts and identifies defendants, this mere paragraph is insufficient to cure the deficiencies that Judge Specter identified. For example, Mr. Monroe asserts that he was "[h]eld without court order at charlotte Hungerford Hospital for 16 days and was treated in a cruel and unjust manner." First Am. Compl. at 2. He does not provide a timeframe for when this alleged detention occurred nor does he identify who detained him. The rest of Mr. Monroe's First Amended Complaint proceeds in a similar fashion. See, e.g., id. (asserting that his "civil rights; personal dignity; right to privacy were violated...."). On March 20, 2023, Mr. Monroe filed a Second Amended Complaint. See Pl.'s Second Amended Compl., ECF No. 10 ("Second Am. Compl."). The Second Amended Complaint likewise fails to provide sufficient facts to overcome the deficiencies that Judge Specter identified. See, e.g., id. at 4 (stating that "saint Vincent hospital falsely and unlawfully [sent him] to Charlotte Hungerford Hospital and administer[ed] mal-practice procedures. Also with[eld] medical records[]"). Such conclusory statements do not provide sufficient "facts supporting his claims against each of the defendants[,]" as required by Judge Spector's Recommended Ruling. Recommended Ruling at 7. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Judge Spector Recommended Ruling over Mr. Monroe's objection. Because Mr. Monroe has now filed two amended complaints and neither cure the deficiencies Judge Spector identified, the Court declines to grant further leave to amend. See, e.g., Lewis v. Clark, No. 3:14CV1592(RNC), 2016 WL 1626814, at *1 (D. Conn. Apr. 22, 2016) ("Because the amended complaint fails to allege facts that cure the deficiencies described in [a prior] ruling, because plaintiff has had an opportunity to replead in light of the guidance provided by the [prior ruling], and because a liberal reading of the amended complaint gives no indication that a valid claim might be stated, the action will now be dismissed with prejudice."); Grullon v. City of New Haven, 720 F.3d 133, 114 (2d Cir. 2013) ("Leave to amend may properly be denied if the amendment would be 'futil[e].'" (quoting Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)); Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99, 112 (2d Cir. 2000) ("[W]e do not find that the complaint liberally read suggests that the plaintiff has a claim that she has inadequately or inartfully pleaded... The problem with [plaintiff's] causes of action is substantive; better pleading will not cure it." (citations, internal quotation marks, and alterations omitted)). The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to close this case. Signed by Judge Victor A. Bolden on 4/25/2023. (Diallo, I.)
|
| Filing 13 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Timothy C. Monroe. (Corriette, M.) |
| Filing 11 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Timothy C. Monroe. (Imbriani, Susan) |
| Filing 10 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT against City of Bridgeport, Department of Corrections, HUD Equal Opportunities Housing, New Neighborhoods, Inc., State of Connecticut, Optimus Health Care, Charlotte Hungerford Hospital, Housing Authority of Bridgeport, CT, St. Vincent Hospital, filed by Timothy C. Monroe.(Imbriani, Susan) Modified as to title of document on 3/20/2023 (Imbriani, Susan). |
| Filing 12 AMENDED COMPLAINT against Charlotte Hungerford Hospital, Optimus Health Care, filed by Timothy C. Monroe.(Imbriani, Susan) |
|
Filing 9
RECOMMENDED RULING denying #1 Complaint filed by Timothy C. Monroe, #2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Timothy C. Monroe. 8 Pages. Objections due by 3/21/2023.For the reasons stated in the attached ruling, the Court respectfully recommends that the plaintiffs motion to proceed in forma pauperis be DENIED without prejudice to renew. If the plaintiff wishes to pursue this action further, then he must either file a renewed Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis or pay the required filing fee by March 21, 2023. Failure to do so may result in dismissal of the action. Any renewed motion shall address the plaintiff's employment status and any benefits he may be collecting.The Court further recommends that the plaintiffs entire action be DISMISSED without prejudice to re-filing.The defendant must file an Amended Complaint that sets forth a clear statement of the jurisdiction and facts supporting his claims against each of the defendants by April 7, 2023. Any amended complaint must comply with the Federal and Local Rules of Civil Procedure and must be captioned Amended Complaint. Any amended complaint must comply with Rule 8's requirements of a short and plain statement establishing both this Court's jurisdiction and the claims against each defendant. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). The plaintiff is advised that any amended complaint will completely supersede the current Complaint and must include all allegations against each defendant, such that the Amended Complaint may stand alone as the sole Complaint in the action. This is a recommended ruling. See FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(1). Any objections to this recommended ruling must be filed with the Clerk of the Court within fourteen (14) days after filing of such order. See D. CONN. L. CIV. R. 72.2(a). Any party receiving notice or an order or recommended ruling from the Clerk by mail shall have five (5) additional days to file any objection. See D. CONN. L. CIV. R. 72.2(a). Failure to file a timely objection will preclude appellate review. See 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1); Rules 6(a) & 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; D. CONN. L. CIV. R. 72.2; Impala v. United States Dept. of Justice, 670 F. Appx 32 (2d Cir. 2016) (summary order) (failure to file timely objection to Magistrate Judges recommended ruling will preclude further appeal to Second Circuit); Small v. Secretary of H.H.S., 892 F.2d 15 (2d Cir. 1989) (per curiam). Signed by Judge Robert M. Spector on March 7, 2023.(Salguero, Carlos)
|
|
Filing 8
ORDER REFERRING CASE to Judge Robert M. Spector for ruling on #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 3/6/2023.(Murphy, Tatihana)
|
|
Filing 7
ORDER REFERRING CASE to Judge Robert M. Spector for review of #2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Signed by Judge Victor A. Bolden on 3/3/2023.(Murphy, Tatihana)
|
|
Filing 6
STANDING PROTECTIVE ORDER Signed by Judge Victor A. Bolden on 2/27/2023.(Imbriani, Susan)
|
|
Filing 5
ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER FOR COUNSEL - PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER Signed by Judge Victor A. Bolden on 2/27/2023.(Imbriani, Susan)
|
|
Filing 4
Order on Pretrial Deadlines: Amended Pleadings due by 4/28/2023; Discovery due by 8/29/2023; Dispositive Motions due by 10/3/2023. Signed by Clerk on 2/27/2023.(Imbriani, Susan)
|
| Filing 3 Notice: Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 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 2/27/2023.(Imbriani, Susan) |
| Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Timothy C. Monroe. (Imbriani, Susan) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against City of Bridgeport, Department of Corrections, HUD Equal Opportunities Housing, New Neighborhoods, Inc., State of Connecticut, filed by Timothy C. Monroe.(Imbriani, Susan) |
| Judge Victor A. Bolden and Judge Robert M. Spector added. (Oliver, T.) |
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.
