Moreno-Cuevas v. Navarro et al
| Ramon Moreno-Cuevas |
| John Navarro, Herbert Ray Jenkins, Jane Doe 1, John Doe 1, Jane Doe 2, John Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, John Doe 3, Jane Doe 4, John Doe 4, Jane Doe 5, John Doe 5, Jane Doe 6, John Doe 6, Jane Doe 7, Jane Does and John Does |
| 3:2023cv01383 |
| October 19, 2023 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| Sarala V Nagala |
| Robert M Spector |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on December 4, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 27
ORDER adopting in part #17 recommended ruling; denying as moot #9 Plaintiff's ex parte motion, #11 Plaintiff's motion to note date, #16 Plaintiff's motion for clarification, and #24 Plaintiff's "amended civil action and request for criminal action"; sua sponte unsealing #9 Plaintiff's ex parte motion. For the reasons set forth in the recommended ruling, the Court finds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action. Plaintiff cannot establish federal question jurisdiction under the federal criminal statutes identified in his complaint, and the Court otherwise lacks diversity jurisdiction to adjudicate the remaining state law claims emanating from this landlord-tenant dispute. In his objection to the recommended ruling, Plaintiff concedes that the Court lacks diversity jurisdiction over this matter, and that the criminal statutes cited in his original complaint do not provide him with a cause of action. Id. paras. 1, 89. Because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, though, it cannot dismiss the complaint with prejudice, as suggested by the recommended ruling. Hernandez v. Conriv Realty Assoc., 182 F.3d 121, 123 (2d Cir. 1999) ("Article III deprives federal courts of the power to dismiss a case with prejudice where federal subject matter jurisdiction does not exist."). As the Court agrees with the recommended ruling that the complaint's jurisdictional defeats could not be cured by amendment, however, the Court denies leave to amend. See Mendez v. Albany Cnty. Dept. of Soc. Servs., No. 1:19-CV-968 (LEK/CFH), 2019 WL 5485178, at *2 (N.D.N.Y. Oct. 25, 2019) (taking same approach). In further support of this conclusion, the amended complaint filed by Plaintiff at ECF No. 24 again only cites to criminal statutes which, for the reasons identified, do not provide the Court with federal question jurisdiction because such statutes do not provide him with a private right of action. Plaintiff is incorrect that 18 U.S.C. 1514 is an analogous civil statue through which he may invoke this Court's jurisdiction. That statute only allows the Court to issue a temporary restraining order upon application by an attorney for the Government or the Court's own motion to restrain the harassment of a victim or witness in an active federal criminal case or investigation. See 18 U.S.C. 1514, et seq.. Should Plaintiff seek to initiate a criminal case, he may file a complaint with the appropriate investigatory authorities. This case is therefore dismissed without prejudice, but without leave to amend. The remaining motions, ECF Nos. 9, 11, 16, and 24 are denied as moot. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case, and to unseal the motion filed at ECF No. 9 "ex parte" as the Court finds there is no clear and compelling reason to maintain information about this landlord-tenant dispute under seal. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 12/4/2023. (Piccolo, Marissa)
|
| Filing 26 AFFIDAVIT, Signed By Ramon Moreno-Cuevas, filed by Ramon Moreno-Cuevas. (Mendez, D) |
| Filing 25 Answer to the #17 Recommended Ruling, filed by Ramon Moreno-Cuevas. (Mendez, D) |
| Filing 24 Amended Civil Action and Request for a Criminal Action, against Jane Does(7), Jane Does(2), Jane Does(5), Jane Does(6), Jane Does(3), Jane Does, Jane Does(4), John Does(4), John Does(2), John Does(5), John Does(3), John Does(6), John Does(1), Herbert Ray Jenkins, John Navarro, filed by Ramon Moreno-Cuevas. (Mendez, D) |
|
Filing 23
ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER - PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER. SELF-REPRESENTED FILERS ARE REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH THE ATTACHED JUDGE'S STANDARD ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 11-28-2023. (Shafer, J.)
|
|
Filing 22
ORDER granting #21 Plaintiff's motion of self-represented litigant to participate in electronic filing. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 11/28/2023. (Piccolo, Marissa)
|
|
Filing 20
ORDER denying as moot #11 Motion for Order. (See Doc. No. #17 ). Signed by Judge Robert M. Spector on November 17, 2023. (Spears, Andrew)
|
|
Filing 19
ORDER denying as moot #9 ExParte Motion. (See Doc. No. #17 ). Signed by Judge Robert M. Spector on November 17, 2023. (Spears, Andrew)
|
|
Filing 18
ORDER granting #2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. (See Doc. No. #17 ). Signed by Judge Robert M. Spector on November 17, 2023. (Spears, Andrew)
|
|
Filing 17
RECOMMENDED RULING: For the reasons set forth in the attached Recommended Ruling, the plaintiff's Motion to Proceed IFP (Doc. No. #2 ) is GRANTED. Nevertheless, the Court finds no basis for the exercise of subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff's Complaint, and because any amendment would be futile, respectfully recommends that the Court DISMISS the plaintiff's Complaint in its entirety, with prejudice. The Court further DENIES AS MOOT the plaintiff's "Ex-Parte Motion" (Doc. No. #9 ) and related "Motion to Note Date" (Doc. No. #11 ). 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. App'x 32 (2d Cir. 2016) (summary order) (failure to file timely objection to Magistrate Judge's 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). Objections due by 12/1/2023. Signed by Judge Robert M. Spector on November 17, 2023. (Spears, Andrew)
|
| Filing 16 MOTION for Clarification re 15 Order on Motion for Order, by Ramon Moreno-Cuevas. (Mendez, D) |
|
Filing 15
ORDER denying #13 motion to correct process nunc pro tunc. The complaint is undergoing an initial review, after which the Court will inform Plaintiff whether the complaint as drafted may proceed to service against Defendants. Plaintiff should not endeavor to serve the Defendants before then. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 10/31/2023. (Piccolo, Marissa)
|
|
Filing 14
ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Robert M. Spector for a ruling on #11 MOTION to Note Date. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 10-30-2023. (Shafer, J.)
|
| Filing 13 MOTION to correct process Nunc Pro Tunc, by Ramon Moreno-Cuevas. (Mendez, D) |
| Request for Clerk to issue summons as to Herbert Ray Jenkins, John Navarro. (Mendez, D) |
| Filing 11 MOTION to Note Date, by Ramon Moreno-Cuevas. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit E) (Mendez, D) |
|
Filing 10
ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Robert M. Spector for a ruling on #9 EXPARTE MOTION. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 10/26/2023.Motions referred to Robert M. Spector(Bozek, M.)
|
| Filing 9 EXPARTE MOTION, by Ramon Moreno-Cuevas. (Mendez, D) |
|
Filing 8
ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Robert M. Spector for a initial review of the #1 complaint and a ruling on #2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 10/25/2023.Motions referred to Robert M. Spector(Bozek, M.)
|
| Judge Sarala V. Nagala and Judge Robert M. Spector added. (Rynne, Michelle) |
| Filing 21 MOTION by Self-Represented Litigant to Participate in Electronic Filing by Ramon Moreno-Cuevas. (Gaskins, A) |
| Filing 12 Consent to Electronic Notice by Ramon Moreno-Cuevas (Gaskins, A) |
|
Filing 7
STANDING PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 10/19/2023. (Mendez, D)
|
|
Filing 6
ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER FOR COUNSEL - PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 10/19/2023. (Mendez, D)
|
|
Filing 5
Order on Pretrial Deadlines: Amended Pleadings due by 12/18/2023. Discovery due by 4/19/2024. Dispositive Motions due by 5/24/2024. Signed by Clerk on 10/19/2023. (Mendez, D)
|
| Filing 4 NOTICE of Pro Se Appearance by Ramon Moreno-Cuevas (Gaskins, A) |
| 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 10/19/2023.(Gaskins, A) |
| Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Ramon Moreno-Cuevas. (Gaskins, A) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT by Ramon Moreno-Cuevas. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A.B,C,D, #2 Exhibit E)(Gaskins, A) Modified on 10/25/2023 to change title of document to "complaint" (Bozek, M.). |
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.
