Britt v. Moulette et al
| Charles Lamont Britt |
| Miguel Moulette, Megan O'Shea and Commissioner of Corrections |
| 3:2024cv00980 |
| June 3, 2024 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| Vernon D Oliver |
| 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 June 27, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 12
ORDER: The Court is in receipt of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint #11 . However, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's initial Complaint with prejudice and stated that leave to amend would be futile. See ECF No. 10 . That means Plaintiff cannot file another complaint in this case. Accordingly, the Court's Order 10 stands and this case remains dismissed with prejudice. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Vernon D. Oliver on 6/27/2024.(Lapsia, T)
|
| Filing 11 AMENDED COMPLAINT against Commissioner of Corrections, Miguel Moulette, Megan O'Shea, filed by Charles Lamont Britt. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit)(Gaskins, A) |
|
Filing 10
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT. Pro se Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis at ECF No. #9 is hereby GRANTED. Although Plaintiff has established that he is unable to pay the filing fee, Plaintiff's Complaint at ECF No. #1 is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B) as it does not allege any facts that state a plausible claim for relief. Plaintiff Charles Britt commenced this action in June 2024, alleging that Defendants Miguel Moulette, Megan OShea, and the Commissioner of the Connecticut Department of Corrections violated the Fourteenth Amendment by falsely alleging that he violated conditions of probation, leading to unlawful arrest and incarceration. Under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B), a court shall dismiss a complaint when "the action... is frivolous or malicious;... fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or... seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief." In evaluating whether a complaint survives this analysis, a court must "accept as true all factual allegations in the complaint and draw all reasonable inferences" in a plaintiff's favor. Cruz v. Gomez, 202 F.3d 593, 596 (2d Cir. 2000). Pro se complaints "must be construed liberally and interpreted to raise the strongest arguments that they suggest." Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474 (2d Cir. 2006). But, to survive dismissal, a complaint must plead "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).Here, the Complaint must be dismissed because Plaintiff fails to state viable Fourteenth Amendment due process or peonage claims, the federal claims in this case. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment "by falsely alleging a probation violation, leading to unlawful arrest and incarceration." (ECF No. #1 at 7.) However, attached to Plaintiff's Complaint is a printout of a State of Connecticut Judicial Branch webpage demonstrating that Plaintiff pled guilty to the violation of probation. (ECF No. #1 at 19.) Because he pled guilty to the violation of probation, Plaintiff cannot state a plausible Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claim arising out of those events. See Trimmier v. Cook, No. 3:20-CV-396 (KAD), 2020 WL 5231300, at *3 (D. Conn. Sept. 2, 2020); see also Coleman v. Sutton, 530 F. Supp. 2d 451, 453 (W.D.N.Y. 2008) (noting that plaintiff's plea of "guilty to the charged [sic] in the misbehavior report filed against him by Nurse Welburn... defeats any claim based on the issuance of the report") (citing Reid v. Doe, No. 95-CV-1144, 1997 WL 216226, at *5 (N.D.N.Y. Apr. 15, 1997)) (stating that since inmate plaintiff pleaded guilty to harassment charge in misbehavior report, there could be no constitutional violation arising out of issuance of report, even if report was motivated in part by retaliation). Plaintiff's allegations also do not state a claim for peonage. To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. 1994, a plaintiff must allege that he is being forced to perform some compulsory service to pay a debt. See Dolla v. Unicast Co., 930 F. Supp. 202, 20405 (E.D. Pa. 1996) (stating that "the critical elements of a peonage claim [under 1994] are indebtedness and compulsion" and dismissing the plaintiff's claim for failing to allege that the plaintiff was indebted to the defendant); see also United States v. Reynolds, 235 U.S. 133, 144 (1914); Pierce v. United States, 146 F.2d 84 (5th Cir. 1944), cert. denied, 324 U.S. 873 (1945). Plaintiff has not alleged that he owes a debt to Defendants or that he was compelled to work to pay off such a debt. Thus, Plaintiff's claim under 1994 is dismissed.Accordingly, Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment and peonage claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim. Leave to amend is denied because it is apparent that, even under a liberal reading of the Complaint, repleading the Fourteenth Amendment and peonage claims would be futile. Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99, 112 (2d Cir. 2000). To the extent that Plaintiff brings state law claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those state law causes of actions because the federal claims are dismissed. Doody v. Bank of Am., N.A., No. 3:19-CV-1191 (VDO), 2024 WL 20706, at *8 (D. Conn. Jan. 2, 2024). The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962).The Clerk is directed to close the case and to mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Vernon D. Oliver on 6/18/2024. (Lapsia, T)
|
| Filing 9 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Charles Lamont Britt. (Attachments: #1 Affidavit)(Gaskins, A) (Additional attachment(s) added on 6/12/2024: #2 Exhibit Budget Sheet for Plaintiff) (Gaskins, A). |
| Set Deadlines: Dismissal due by 7/4/2024. (Samson, J) |
|
Filing 4
ORDER denying #2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis: Plaintiff has filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Under 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(1), a court may authorize the commencement of a civil action without prepayment of fees and costs provided the plaintiff submits sufficient documentation demonstrating that he is unable to pay or give security therefor. While a plaintiff is not required to choose between filing a potentially meritorious claim and destitution, see Potnick v. Eastern State Hospital, 701 F.2d 243, 244 (2d Cir. 1983), a court may deny a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis if the plaintiff does not submit the requisite financial information or fails to demonstrate inability to pay. A sufficient in forma pauperis application is one that demonstrates that the plaintiff cannot because of his poverty pay or give security for the costs and still be able to provide himself and his dependents with the necessities of life. Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948). Here, Plaintiff's application states that he receives approximately $1,700 a month in benefits and assistance. On the other hand, Plaintiff states that he has $0 in monthly obligations and that he received cash settlements in two lawsuits. Nor does Plaintiff list any dependents. Accordingly, it does not appear that requiring Plaintiff to pay the filing fee would impose an undue financial hardship on him. Accordingly, the Court DENIES the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff shall pay the filing fee within thirty (30) days of this Order or the action shall be dismissed. Alternatively, Plaintiff may file an amended in forma pauperis application and, if so, he should submit supporting documentation such as pay stubs. If Plaintiff seeks further guidance, he is encouraged to contact the Federal Pro Se Legal Assistance Program at 203-850-7720 and to leave a message. The Clerk is directed to mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Vernon D. Oliver on 6/4/2024. (Lapsia, T)
|
| 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 6/3/2024.(Chartier, A.) |
| Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Charles Lamont Britt. (Chartier, A.) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Commissioner of Corrections, Miguel Moulette, Megan O'Shea, filed by Charles Lamont Britt.(Chartier, A.) |
| Judge Vernon D. Oliver and Judge Robert A. Richardson added. (Freberg, B) |
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.
