Dunham et al v. Lions Club Int. Assoc. et al
| Roland Dunham, II and Kimbly Arnold |
| Lions Club Int. Assoc., Susan Fisher, David Kingsbury, Pam Grashma, Lee R. Brown, Sweet Potatoe Society Corp, Floresia Allen, New London Community Meal Center, Corp, Maryann Martines, Trina Charles and Lions Clubs Int. Assoc. |
| 3:2023cv00561 |
| May 1, 2023 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| Sarala V Nagala |
| Robert A Richardson |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. § 1981 Civil Rights |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on June 22, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 14
ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER - PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER. SELF-REPRESENTED FILERS ARE REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH THE JUDGE'S STANDARD ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER WHICH IS ATTACHED. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 6/22/2023.(Bozek, M.)
|
|
Filing 13
ORDER granting #5 Motion By Self-Represented Litigant to Participate in Electronic Filing. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 06/22/2023. (Kuegler, Adam)
|
| Filing fee received from Roland Dunham: $ 402.00, receipt number HFD 20330. (Mendez, D) |
| Set Deadline: Filing Fee or Dismissal due by 6/20/2023. (Bozek, M.) |
|
Filing 12
ORDER denying #10 Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. As the Court noted in its order at ECF No. 9 denying Plaintiff Dunham's initial motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP"), the Court evaluates a litigant's financial status to determine whether he is eligible to proceed IFP under 28 U.S.C. 1915(a). Applicants are not required to "demonstrate absolute destitution," Potnick v. E. State Hosp., 701 F.2d 243, 244 (2d Cir. 1983) (per curiam), but must establish that they cannot afford to pay for both the necessities of life and the costs of litigation, Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948). Like his first IFP motion at ECF No. #2 , Dunham's second IFP motion at ECF No. #10 , leaves the Court without a basis to grant him IFP status. At the outset, as he did in his first IFP motion, Dunham has once again provided the Court with contradictory responses regarding his personal finances. Specifically, Dunham first states that he receives $2,500 in total monthly income, including unemployment, ECF No. #10 at 2; see also id. at 6, but then appears to represent that he receives $4,000 in gross monthly pay from CONNTAC, Inc. and $1,000 in gross monthly pay from Drop-In Learning, id. at 3. These inconsistencies alone leave the Court without a basis to grant Dunham's IFP application. Setting aside these inconsistencies, however, denial of Dunham's IFP application is likewise warranted on the ground that he has separately represented that he receives at least $2,500 in total monthly income, id. at 2, and has only $1,200 in monthly expenses, id. at 4-5. Based on these representations, the Court is unable to determine that Dunham cannot afford to pay for both the necessities of life and the costs of this litigation. Accordingly, Dunham's request for IFP status is DENIED.All further proceedings in this matter shall be held in abeyance for 30 days pending Plaintiffs' delivery of the filing fee in the amount of $402 (money order or bank check made payable to the Clerk of Court) to the Clerk's Office, 915 Lafayette Boulevard, Bridgeport, CT 06604. Failure to tender the filing fee within 30 days of the date of this Order, on or before June 20, 2023, will result in dismissal of this action.In addition, if Plaintiffs intend to pay the filing fee and proceed with this action, they are directed to contact the Federal Pro Se Program through nhlegal.org/federalprose to seek legal advice about filing an amended complaint. The current complaint is sixteen pages long, and attaches 64 pages of exhibits of emails, text messages, and other records. Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires "a short and plain statement of the claim," Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), which is "sufficient to give the defendants fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it rests," Jones v. Natl Commc'ns & Surveillance Networks, 266 F. App'x 31, 32 (2d Cir. 2008) (summary order) (internal quotation marks omitted). Rule 8 "does not demand that a complaint be a model of clarity or exhaustively present the facts alleged," but it does require, "at a minimum, that a complaint give each defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and the ground upon which it rests." Atuahene v. City of Hartford, 10 F. App'x 33, 34 (2d Cir. 2001) (summary order) (internal quotation marks omitted). Neither the Court, nor Defendants, can be expected to review the voluminous exhibits and glean how they fit into the claims asserted against each Defendant. See Carmel v. CSH & C, 32 F. Supp. 3d 434, 436 (W.D.N.Y. 2014) ("[E]ven a pro se litigant cannot simply dump a stack of exhibits on the court and expect the court to sift through them to determine if some nugget is buried somewhere in that mountain of papers, waiting to be unearthed and refined into a cognizable claim."). Therefore, should Plaintiffs choose to continue with this case, they must first consult with the Federal Pro Se Program to consult with it about filing an amended complaint that complies with Rule 8. If Plaintiffs pay the filing fee by the deadline set above, by June 30, 2023, Plaintiffs shall file a notice stating that they have complied with the directive to consult with the Federal Pro Se Program.Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 05/22/2023. (Kuegler, Adam)
|
| Filing 11 *ENTERED IN ERROR* NOTICE, by Roland Dunham, II. (Mendez, D) Modified on 6/7/2023 to enter an error (Mendez, D). |
| Filing 10 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, by Roland Dunham, II. (Attachments: #1 Attachments) (Mendez, D) |
|
Filing 9
ORDER denying without prejudice #2 Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. The Court evaluates a litigant's financial status to determine whether he is eligible to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP") under 28 U.S.C. 1915(a). Applicants are not required to "demonstrate absolute destitution," Potnick v. E. State Hosp., 701 F.2d 243, 244 (2d Cir. 1983) (per curiam), but must establish that they cannot afford to pay for both the necessities of life and the costs of litigation, Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948). In his IFP application, Plaintiff Dunham has provided contradictory responses, including that he is both employed and unemployed, and that he receives both $300 biweekly and $250 weekly from his current employment. In light of these inconsistencies, the Court cannot determine whether Dunham is entitled to IFP status. Accordingly, Plaintiff Dunham's IFP motion is denied without prejudice to refiling. No IFP motion has been submitted by Plaintiff Arnold. By June 5, 2023, Plaintiffs shall either pay the filing fee or each submit separate IFP applications clearly setting forth all required information, including their income, assets, obligations, and employment status. For the avoidance of doubt, the Court orders that, for this action to proceed, Plaintiffs either must collectively pay the filing fee, or they must each individually be granted IFP status. See Sitts v. Weaver, No. 9:20-cv-1474 (GTS)(DJS), 2021 WL 51411, at *2 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 6, 2021) (citing cases). Failure to comply with this order will result in dismissal of this action. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 5/5/2023. (Rennie, Carolyn)
|
| Request for Clerk to issue summons as to Floresia Allen, Lee R. Brown, Trina Charles, Susan Fisher, Pam Grashma, David Kingsbury, Lions Club Int. Assoc., Maryann Martines, New London Community Meal Center, Corp, Sweet Potatoe Society Corp. (Peterson, M) |
| Filing 5 MOTION By Self-Represented Litigant to Participate in Electronic Filing by Roland Dunham, II. (Peterson, M) |
| Filing 4 Consent to Electronic Notice by Roland Dunham, II (Peterson, M) |
| Filing 3 Notice: Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1, a 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 5/1/2023. (Peterson, M) |
| Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Roland Dunham, II. (Peterson, M) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Floresia Allen, Lee R. Brown, Trina Charles, Susan Fisher, Pam Grashma, David Kingsbury, Lions Club Int. Assoc., Maryann Martines, New London Community Meal Center, Corp, Sweet Potatoe Society Corp, filed by Kimbly Arnold, Roland Dunham, II. (Attachments: #1 Exhibits, #2 Civil Cover Sheet) (Peterson, M) |
| Judge Sarala V. Nagala and Judge Robert A. Richardson added. (Shafer, 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.
