Rajkarnikar v. Bloomfield Police Department et al
| Nirjala Rajkarnikar |
| Bloomfield Police Department, Waterbury Hospital, Sama LLC and MGM International |
| 3:2024cv00165 |
| February 7, 2024 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| Michael P Shea |
| S Dave Vatti |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on April 1, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 24 Brief: About the Brief Given to US Attorneys by Nirjala Rajkarnikar (Peterson, M) |
| Filing 23 MOTION to Amend (Responses due by 4/17/2024), MOTION to Reopen Case (Responses due by 4/17/2024), MOTION to Apply Application of RICO Laws by Nirjala Rajkarnikar. (Attachments: #1 Appendix, #2 Envelope) (Peterson, M) |
| Filing 22 MOTION to Amend (Responses due by 4/15/2024), MOTION to Reopen Case (Responses due by 4/15/2024), MOTION to Apply Application of RICO Laws by Nirjala Rajkarnikar. (Attachments: #1 Appendix) (Peterson, M) |
| Filing 21 MOTION to Reopen Case by Nirjala Rajkarnikar. Responses due by 4/8/2024 (Peterson, M) |
Filing 20
ORDER. On February 9, 2024, the Court closed this case without prejudice because Plaintiff's complaint failed to provide a basis for this Court's jurisdiction and because the complaint was frivolous. ECF No. 7. The Court gave Plaintiff until March 8, 2024 to file a motion to reopen along with an amended complaint. Though Plaintiff has not filed a motion to reopen, she has filed several amended complaints. See ECF No. 8; ECF No. 12; ECF No. 15; ECF No. 16. None of these amended complaints provide a basis for this Court's jurisdiction, and--despite Plaintiff's contestations to the contrary, see ECF No. 11--they are all frivolous. In ECF Nos. 8 and 12, Plaintiff attempts to add additional defendants without explaining what conduct might give rise to their liability. See ECF No. 8 at 1-3; ECF No. 12 at 1. In addition, Plaintiff attempts to add a claim under Conn. Gen. Stat. 53-21, ECF No. 8 at 1; ECF No. 12 at 1, but that is a criminal statute, and so Plaintiff cannot bring a claim under it, see McArthur v. Nino's Mkt., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 216692, *4 (D. Conn. Nov. 19, 2020) ("It is well-settled... that criminal statutes do not provide a private cause of action."); Rizvi v. Urstadt Biddle Properties Inc., No. 3:17-CV-01410-VAB, 2018 WL 4688305, at *5 (D. Conn. Sept. 28, 2018), aff'd, 791 F. App'x 282 (2d Cir. 2020) (noting that Title 53 of the Connecticut General Statutes is Connecticut's penal code). Because these allegations are based on an "indisputably meritless legal theory," they are frivolous. Livingston v. Adirondack Beverage Co., 141 F.3d 434, 437 (2d Cir. 1998) (internal quotation marks omitted). The allegations in ECF Nos. 15 are also frivolous. Though they are difficult to follow, they appear to relate to conspiracy theories regarding King Charles III of the United Kingdom, Julian Assange, and the auditing firm Ernst & Young LLP, among others. Because these allegations consist of "fantastic or 'delusional scenarios,'" they "are properly dismissed as 'clearly baseless.'" Abascal v. Jarkos, 357 F. App'x 388, 390 (2d Cir. 2009); see also Allen v. Ronan, 764 F. Supp. 738, 740 (D. Conn. 1991) ("[P]ro se complaints containing only conclusory, vague, or general allegations of a conspiracy to deprive a person of constitutional rights are subject to dismissal."). Finally, ECF No. 16 seems to describe events regarding several cases filed by Plaintiff that were previously dismissed by this Court. See, e.g., ECF No. 16 at 1 (citing Rajkarnikar v. MGM Springfield et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-01254), 5 (citing Rajkarnikar v. MGM Resorts International, Case No. 3:22-cv-01371). Specifically, Plaintiff appears to discuss her attempts to serve process in those prior cases. See id. at 2-5. She also attaches filings from those prior cases to her amended complaint. See id. at 5-8. It is unclear how these allegations relate to Plaintiff's present action, and, in any event, they do not set forth any non-frivolous claims for relief. For these reasons, this case shall remain closed, and the Court's prior order dismissing this action without prejudice shall convert to one with prejudice. The #9 motion to appoint counsel and #13 emergency motion are DENIED as moot. Signed by Judge Michael P Shea on 3/13/2024. (Bassali, D)
|
| Filing 19 NOTICE by Nirjala Rajkarnikar (Peterson, M) |
| Filing 18 NOTICE by Nirjala Rajkarnikar (Peterson, M) |
| Filing 17 NOTICE by Nirjala Rajkarnikar (Peterson, M) |
| Filing 16 AMENDED COMPLAINT against Bloomfield Police Department, filed by Nirjala Rajkarnikar. (Peterson, M) |
| Filing 15 AMENDED COMPLAINT against Bloomfield Police Department, filed by Nirjala Rajkarnikar. (Peterson, M) |
| Filing 13 Emergency MOTION for Custody of My Children/Child and Emergency Protection Order for my Children by Nirjala Rajkarnikar. (Peterson, M) |
| Filing 12 THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT against Bloomfield Police Department, filed by Nirjala Rajkarnikar. (Peterson, M) |
| Filing 11 RESPONSE re 7 Order filed by Nirjala Rajkarnikar. (Peterson, M) |
| Filing 10 NOTICE by Nirjala Rajkarnikar (Peterson, M) |
| Filing 9 MOTION to Appoint Counsel by Nirjala Rajkarnikar. (Peterson, M) |
| Filing 8 AMENDED COMPLAINT against Bloomfield Police Department, filed by Nirjala Rajkarnikar. (Peterson, M) |
| Set Deadlines: Amended Pleadings due by 3/8/2024 (Johnson, D.) |
|
Filing 7
ORDER. Plaintiff has filed a complaint and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. See ECF Nos. 1, 2. For the reasons stated below, the complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice. First, Plaintiff's complaint fails to provide a basis for this Court's jurisdiction. Plaintiff invokes this Court's federal question jurisdiction, citing 42 U.S.C. 14141. See ECF No. 1 at 3. As an initial matter, 42 U.S.C. 14141 is no longer in effect and was recodified at 34 U.S.C. 12601. 34 U.S.C. 12601, part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, does not create a private cause of action; rather, it gives the Attorney General of the United States the authority to seek injunctive relief against law enforcement agencies that may be violating people's federal rights. See, e.g., Maretta-Brooks v. Hanuszczak, No. 18-CV-0426, 2018 WL 2021480, at *7 (N.D.N.Y. Apr. 26, 2018) ("Under 34 U.S.C. 12601, only the United States Attorney General has the authority to bring a civil action."), report and recommendation adopted No. 18-CV-0426 (N.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 2018). And the other two bases for federal question jurisdiction that Plaintiff provides--"Gaslight to Change an Individual's Reality Perception to Erase Mind or to Make Brand New Memory" and "How much of Abuse is a threshold for Psychological Abuse for Authorities to make laws?"--are nonsensical and do not provide this Court with jurisdiction. "Even when no party has questioned the Court's subject-matter jurisdiction, the Court must dismiss an action sua sponte when such jurisdiction is lacking." Ford v. Sims, No. 3:12-CV-67 CSH, 2012 WL 201847, at *1 (D. Conn. Jan. 23, 2012).Moreover, the complaint is frivolous and fails to state a claim for relief. Under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2), the court shall dismiss an action brought in forma pauperis "at any time if the court determines that... the action... is frivolous or malicious [or]... fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted." 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B). An action is frivolous when either "(1) the factual contentions are clearly baseless, such as when allegations are the product of delusion or fantasy; or (2) the claim is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory." Livingston v. Adirondack Beverage Co., 141 F.3d 434, 437 (2d Cir. 1998) (internal quotations omitted). Here, Plaintiff's sparse factual allegations are frivolous and furnish no plausible or conceivable grounds for relief. Her statement of the case states in full: "The Defendants involved in Dynamics of Abuse & Dynamics of Gaslight to Change My Reality Perception to Erase My Mind and or to Make my existing memory into Brand New Memory." ECF No. 1 at 4. These allegations are frivolous and cannot support a claim for relief. See Abascal v. Jarkos, 357 F. App'x 388, 390 (2d Cir. 2009) ("Where the factual allegations supporting a claim describe fantastic or 'delusional scenarios,' the claims are properly dismissed as 'clearly baseless.'").For these reasons, the complaint is dismissed without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B). The Clerk is directed to close this case. If Plaintiff wishes to attempt to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, she may file a motion to reopen the case, together with a proposed Amended Complaint, on or before March 8, 2022. The #2 motion to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED as moot. Signed by Judge Michael P Shea on 2/9/2024. (Bassali, D.)
|
| Filing 14 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 2/7/2024. (Mendez, D) |
| Filing 6 Notice of Option to Consent to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction. (Peterson, M) |
|
Filing 5
Standing Protective Order Signed by Judge Michael P Shea on 02/07/2024. (Peterson, M)
|
|
Filing 4
ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER FOR COUNSEL - PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER Signed by Judge Michael P Shea on 02/07/2024. (Peterson, M)
|
|
Filing 3
Order on Pretrial Deadlines: Amended Pleadings due by 4/7/2024. Discovery due by 8/8/2024. Dispositive Motions due by 9/12/2024. Signed by Clerk on 02/07/2024. (Peterson, M)
|
| Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, by Nirjala Rajkarnikar. (Mendez, D) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Bloomfield Police Department, MGM International, Sama LLC, Waterbury Hospital, filed by Nirjala Rajkarnikar. (Mendez, D) |
| Judge Michael P. Shea and Judge S. Dave Vatti 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.
