Fraser v. City of New Haven et al
| Gabriy'el Fraser |
| City of New Haven, City of New Haven Police Department, City of Waterbury, City of Waterbury Police Department, State of Connecticut, State of Connecticut State Police and Office of Chief State Attorney |
| 3:2024cv00235 |
| February 22, 2024 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| Jeffrey A Meyer |
| Robert A Richardson |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 13, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 12
ORDER DISMISSING CASE. On February 23, 2024, the Court entered an Order to Show Cause Why Complaint Should Not Be Dismissed. Doc. # 11 . Fraser was given an opportunity to file on or before March 1, 2024 either an amended complaint or a response. Ibid. Fraser has not done so. Accordingly, the Court dismisses this action and denies as moot the motions pending at Doc. #2 and Doc. #6 . The Clerk of Court shall close this case. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 3/13/2024.(Lewis, D)
|
|
Filing 11
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court may review a complaint sua sponte to determine if it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim for which relief may be granted. The purpose of this docket order is to state the Court's concerns and to allow plaintiff a fair opportunity to respond.The plaintiff has filed a lawsuit against the State of Connecticut, the State of Connecticut State Police, and the Office of the Chief State's Attorney. It is well settled that the Eleventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and related principles of state sovereign immunity generally divest federal courts of jurisdiction over lawsuits by private citizens against the States, any state government entities, and any state government officials in their official capacities. See generally Lewis v. Clarke, 581 U.S. 155, 162 (2017); T.W. v. New York State Bd. of L. Examiners, 996 F.3d 87, 92 (2d Cir. 2021). For this reason, courts have held that the Connecticut State Police and Chief State's Attorney have immunity from federal court proceedings. See, e.g., Stanley v. Muzio, 2007 WL 776666, at *2 (D. Conn. 2007); Kaminski v. Hayes, 2009 WL 3193621, at *2-3 (D. Conn. 2009). Therefore, it appears that the claims against these three defendants are subject to dismissal. Plaintiff has also named as defendants the City of New Haven and the City of Waterbury. Municipalities are liable for the unconstitutional conduct of their officers only if such conduct is caused by a municipal policy, practice, or custom, or by a municipality's deliberate indifference and inaction in light of a history of similar constitutional deprivations by officers. Moore v. City of Norwalk, 2018 WL 4568409, at *4 (D. Conn. 2018) (citing Monell v. New York City Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978)). This is known as "Monell liability." Plaintiff's complaint fails to show that Monell liability exists because it alleges no facts suggesting that any policy, custom, or practice caused the alleged constitutional violation. These claims also appear subject to dismissal. Finally, Plaintiff has sued the New Haven Police Department and the Waterbury Police Department. Although municipalities are subject to suit under Monell, municipal police departments are not. Williams v. Hartford Police Dep't, 2015 WL 13849474, *1 (D. Conn. 2015). This is because they are sub-units or agencies of municipalities, rather than independent legal entities. Tobin v. Doe, 2005 WL 701274, at *2-3 (D. Conn. 2005). Therefore, Plaintiff's claims against both police departments are subject to dismissal. Plaintiff may file any objection or response to this order to show cause by March 1, 2024. Alternatively, he may file an amended complaint that includes additional factual allegations that overcome the concerns stated in this ruling and/or that adds individual defendants who have violated plaintiff's rights. In the absence of a timely response or amended complaint, the Court is likely to dismiss this action. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 2/23/2024.(Odio, C.)
|
| Filing 10 Notice of Option to Consent to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction. (Chartier, A.) |
|
Filing 9
Standing Protective Order Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 2/22/2024.(Chartier, A.)
|
|
Filing 8
ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER FOR COUNSEL - PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 2/22/2024.(Chartier, A.)
|
|
Filing 7
Order on Pretrial Deadlines: Amended Pleadings due by 4/22/2024 Discovery due by 8/23/2024 Dispositive Motions due by 9/27/2024 Signed by Clerk on 2/22/2024.(Chartier, A.)
|
| Filing 6 MOTION to Appoint Counsel by Gabriy'el Fraser. (Imbriani, S) |
| Filing 5 Consent to Electronic Notice by Gabriy'el Fraser (Imbriani, S) |
| Filing 4 Appearance Self Represented Party by Gabriy'el Fraser (Imbriani, S) |
| 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 2/22/2024.(Imbriani, S) |
| Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Gabriy'el Fraser. (Imbriani, S) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against City of New Haven, City of New Haven Police Department, City of Waterbury, City of Waterbury Police Department, Office of Chief State Attorney, State of Connecticut, State of Connecticut State Police, filed by Gabriy'el Fraser.(Imbriani, S) |
| Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer and Judge Robert A. Richardson added. (Reis, 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.
