Cornish v. Guardian Asset Management
| ORane M. Cornish, Jr. |
| Guardian Asset Management, United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, Grasso, Inthangsa and Dominguez |
| 3:2023cv01612 |
| December 11, 2023 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| Sarala V Nagala |
| Robert M Spector |
| Real Property: Other |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on February 1, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 22
ORDER granting #21 Plaintiff's motion for service of process. Pursuant to the Court's order at ECF No. 19, Plaintiff has requested that the United States Marshals Service serve the complaint on the remaining defendants, as he is proceeding in forma pauperis, and had identified those defendants' service addresses. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3). The Clerk shall prepare service packets for the Marshals, who must effect service and file returns of service within 90 days of receipt of the service packets. The Marshals may serve Defendant Guardian Asset Management as provided in Connecticut General Statutes Section 33-1219. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 2/1/2024. (Piccolo, Marissa)
|
| Filing 21 Motion for Service of Process, by ORane M. Cornish, Jr. (Mendez, D) |
| Filing 20 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 Dkt. 9 Order, Dkt. 5 Notice re: Disclosure Statement, Dkt. 10 Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction, #17 Amended Complaint, #7 Electronic Filing Order, #2 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction, Dkt. 16 Order on Motion to Amend/Correct, Dkt. 11 Order, Dkt. 13 Order on Motion to Appoint Counsel, Dkt. 19 Order, #12 MOTION to Appoint Counsel, #8 Standing Protective Order, #6 Order on Pretrial Deadlines, #3 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, #14 Amended Complaint, #15 MOTION to Amend/Correct, #4 Consent to Electronic Notice, #1 Complaint, and #18 Exhibit. Signed by Clerk on 1-17-2024. (Shafer, J.) |
|
Filing 19
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER. Plaintiff brings this action against Defendants Guardian Asset Management Company ("Guardian"), the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD"), and police officers Grasso, Inthangsa, and Dominguez. In short, Plaintiff alleges that he was wrongfully evicted from 54 Helen Drive in New Britain, Connecticut, and brings claims for violations of the Fourth, Fourteenth, First, and Eighth Amendments, as well as negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress, violations of local health and safety regulations, and Connecticut homelessness statutes among others. The Court previously dismissed Plaintiff's original complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and allowed Plaintiff the opportunity to amend his complaint to add factual detail. See ECF No. 11.First, the Court dismisses Defendant HUD from this action. In his second amended complaint, there is only one factual allegation concerning acts or omissions by Defendant HUD: Plaintiff alleges that he visited HUD, where an "admin assured him that if the taxes were paid, a resolution could be explored wherein Plaintiff could own the property." ECF No. 17 at 4. This is insufficient to state a viable claim against that Defendant. Defendant HUD is therefore dismissed, and the Clerk of Court is directed to terminate Defendant HUD from this action. Next, the Court will allow Plaintiff's second amended complaint to proceed against the remaining Defendants under 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Plaintiff's original complaint was bereft of factual detail. In his second amended complaint, Plaintiff now describes how on December 19, Defendant Guardian attempted to wrongfully evict him with the assistance of Defendant Officers Grasso and Inthangsa. Id. at 4-5. Afterwards, Plaintiff returned to the property and resumed living there until December 22, when Defendant Officer Dominguez assisted in a second (allegedly wrongful) eviction. Id. 6-7. These allegations provide the minimal, but sufficient, factual detail to proceed past initial review. Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that "[i]f a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the courton motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiffmust dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time." Defendants Guardian, Grasso, Inthangsa, and Dominguez must be served by April 16, 2024. Plaintiff may request that the Court order the United States Marshals Service to serve the complaint, in which case he will be responsible for providing service addresses for the Defendants. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3). Any such motion should be filed by January 31, 2024.Plaintiff is encouraged to consult the District of Connecticut's Guide for Self-Represented Litigants, which is available on the Court's website, for helpful information about proceeding with a case pro se. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 1/17/2024.(Piccolo, Marissa)
|
| Filing 18 EXHIBIT by ORane M. Cornish, Jr re #17 Amended Complaint. (Mendez, D) |
| Filing 17 AMENDED COMPLAINT and REQUEST FOR INJUNCTION against Dominguez, Grasso, Guardian Asset Management, Inthangsa, United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, filed by ORane M. Cornish, Jr. (Mendez, D) |
|
Filing 16
ORDER granting #15 Plaintiff's motion to amend. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), Plaintiff may amend his complaint freely prior to service. The Court has reviewed Plaintiff's motion to amend, however, and notes that the motion purports to be the amended complaint, stating claims against a new defendant. See ECF No. 15 at 4. An amended complaint must be a standalone document setting forth all of the claims against all defendants. Plaintiff may file a comprehensive second amended complaint by January 12, 2024, that includes all claims against all defendants, at which time the court will conduct an initial review and determine whether the second amended complaint states a claim for which relief may be granted under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Should Plaintiff fail to file his second amended complaint by then, the Court will conduct this analysis with the first amended complaint filed at ECF No. 14. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 1/2/2024. (Piccolo, Marissa)
|
| Filing 15 MOTION to Amend Complaint and Add Defendant by ORane M. Cornish, Jr. Responses due by 1/16/2024 (Peterson, M) |
| Filing 14 AMENDED COMPLAINT and Request for Injunction against Guardian Asset Management, filed by ORane M. Cornish, Jr. (Mendez, D) |
|
Filing 13
ORDER denying without prejudice #12 motion to appoint counsel. Because civil litigants do not have a constitutional right to the appointment of counsel, a court's decision to appoint pro bono counsel is discretionary. Leftridge v. Conn. State Trooper Officer No. 1283, 640 F.3d 62, 68-69 (2d Cir. 2011) ("A party has no constitutionally guaranteed right to the assistance of counsel in a civil case."); Hodge v. Police Officers, 802 F.2d 58, 60 (2d Cir. 1986) ("Broad discretion lies with the district judge in deciding whether to appoint counsel[.]"); 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915(e)(1) (permitting district court to appoint pro bono counsel for indigent litigant). The Second Circuit has cautioned the district courts against the "routine appointment of counsel." Cooper v. A. Sargenti Co., 877 F.2d 170, 173-74 (2d Cir. 1989). Before an appointment of pro bono counsel for an indigent litigant is considered, the indigent person must demonstrate that he tried, but was unable, to secure counsel. Hodge, 802 F.2d at 61. In addition, the district court must "determine whether the indigent's position seems likely to be of substance." Id. at 61; see also Cooper, 877 F.2d at 171. If the claims are sufficiently meritorious, the court should then consider other factors bearing on the need for appointment of counsel, including the movant's ability to investigate the factual issues of the case, whether conflicting evidence implicating the need for cross-examination will be the major proof presented, the movant's apparent ability to present the case, and the complexity of the legal issues involved. See Hodge, 802 F.2d at 61-62. First, while Plaintiff states that he has contacted several attorneys about representing him in this action, he does not provide any dates or specifics. The Court is unable to discern when the last communication with an attorney was. More critically, at this early stage, Plaintiff has not demonstrated the likely merit of his claims, such that the appointment of counsel is warranted. The Court recently dismissed Plaintiff's complaint for failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See ECF No. 11. If Plaintiff elects to file an amended complaint, the Court will review the sufficiency of that complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B) to determine if any claims will proceed. The Court is mindful of the difficulties faced by parties when litigating an action without an attorney, particularly when that party is homeless. However, the Court can only impose upon private attorneys to give their time and efforts without compensation in cases where the plaintiff has demonstrated that the claims asserted have likely merit. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel is denied at this juncture. Plaintiff may refile his motion at a later stage in the case, if any claims in his amended complaint are to proceed. Any renewed motion must make a strong showing of the likely merit of Plaintiffs claims. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 12/15/2023. (Piccolo, Marissa)
|
| Filing 12 MOTION to Appoint Counsel, by ORane M. Cornish, Jr. (Mendez, D) |
| Set Deadline: Amended Complaint due by 1/12/2024. (Velez, Frances) |
|
Filing 11
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff brings this action against Defendant Guardian Asset Management and the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD") generally alleging that Defendants unlawfully interfered with Plaintiff's property on the false pretense of unpaid property taxes. Plaintiff appends exhibits to his complaint that show he has recently paid $500 towards an outstanding balance of $3,966.29 in property taxes. Plaintiff does not provide any further details which would suggest Defendant Guardian Asset Management is acting unlawfully in any way, and provides no details at all as to HUD's alleged actions. Plaintiff also cites several anti-homeless statutes which generally involve funding for anti-homelessness programs and do not provide Plaintiff with a cause of action. ECF No. 1 at 4 (citing Conn. Gen. Stat. 17-273d; 17-86e; 8-266; 17-619). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), the Court may dismiss a complaint that fails to state a claim for which relief may be granted. The Court finds that the complaint as drafted is bereft of any factual detail that would state a claim for which relief may be granted, and therefore it must be dismissed under section 1915(e) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). This dismissal is without prejudice to the filing of an amended complaint that attempts to remedy the deficiencies noted in this order. Any amended complaint must be filed by January 12, 2024. Plaintiff is advised that he may consult with the Federal Pro Se Program at the New Haven Legal Assistance Association, available at https://nhlegal.org/federalprose, before filing his amended complaint. Should Plaintiff fail to timely file an amended complaint, the Court will close this case. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 12/13/2023.(Piccolo, Marissa)
|
|
Filing 10
ORDER denying #2 Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction. To obtain a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction, a party must demonstrate "(1) irreparable harm in the absence of the injunction and (2) either (a) a likelihood of success on the merits or (b) sufficiently serious questions going to the merits to make them a fair ground for litigation and a balance of hardships tipping decidedly in the movant's favor." MyWebGrocer, L.L.C. v. Hometown Info., Inc., 375 F.3d 190, 192 (2d Cir. 2004). Plaintiff appears to bring claims against an asset management company and the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD") over efforts to confiscate his property in response to unpaid property taxes, which Plaintiff claims he has in fact paid. The only statutes cited by Plaintiff are Connecticut statutes addressing homelessness, though he generally claims he is being subjected to unlawful threats and property interference. Plaintiff asserts the Court has diversity jurisdiction over this matter, because the Defendants are not citizens of the state of Connecticut and the amount in controversy is over $75,000. Plaintiff has not shown he will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of emergency relief. Plaintiff is currently homeless, and although the Court is mindful of this difficulty, it is for reasons unrelated to the asset management company's efforts to obtain his property. See ECF No. 2 at 5. Plaintiff also has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits, nor sufficiently serious questions going to the merits. To begin, some of the statutes cited by Plaintiff do not appear to be current and, more fundamentally, they involve state funding for anti-homelessness programs, and therefore do not provide Plaintiff with a cause of action. Id. at 4 (citing Conn. Gen. Stat. 17-273d; 17-86e; 8-266; 17-619). More generally, Plaintiff's motion and complaint are devoid of facts that would tend to show Defendant's efforts to confiscate his property are unlawful. Indeed, the exhibits Plaintiff appends to his complaint show he recently has only paid $500 towards and outstanding balance of $3,966.29 in property taxes. See ECF No. 1-1 at 1. This also undermines Plaintiff's assertion that the amount in controversy is in excess of $75,000. For these reasons, Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction is denied. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 12/13/2023. (Piccolo, Marissa)
|
|
Filing 9
ORDER granting #3 Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 12/13/2023. (Piccolo, Marissa)
|
|
Filing 8
STANDING PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 12/11/2023. (Mendez, D)
|
|
Filing 7
ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER FOR COUNSEL - PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 12/11/2023. (Mendez, D)
|
|
Filing 6
Order on Pretrial Deadlines: Amended Pleadings due by 2/9/2024. Discovery due by 6/11/2024. Dispositive Motions due by 7/16/2024. Signed by Clerk on 12/11/2023. (Mendez, D)
|
| Filing 5 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 12/11/2023.(Mendez, D) |
| Filing 4 Consent to Electronic Notice, by ORane M. Cornish, Jr. (Mendez, D) |
| Filing 3 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, by ORane M. Cornish, Jr. (Mendez, D) |
| Filing 2 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction, by ORane M. Cornish, Jr. Responses due by 1/1/2024. (Mendez, D) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Guardian Asset Management, filed by ORane M. Cornish, Jr. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit) (Mendez, D) |
| Judge Sarala V. Nagala 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.
