Stephens v. West Haven Police Department et al
| Leron M. Stephens |
| Brittney Fink and Kline Klienknecht |
| 3:2024cv01071 |
| June 20, 2024 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| Michael P Shea |
| Robert M Spector |
| 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 August 8, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 9 AMENDED COMPLAINT against Brittney Fink, Kline Klienknecht, filed by Leron M. Stephens.(Gaskins, A) |
Filing 8
ORDER. The plaintiff meets the requirements of 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(1) and is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. However, the Court DISMISSES without prejudice all claims. Under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2), "the court shall dismiss [a] case at any time if the court determines that... the action... (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief." In evaluating whether a plaintiff has stated a claim for relief, "when [a] plaintiff proceeds pro se... a court is obliged to construe his pleadings liberally." Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant, 537 F.3d 185, 191 (2d Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (alterations in original). "[A] pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Nevertheless, even a pro se plaintiff 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); see also Hogan v. Fischer, 738 F.3d 509, 515 (2d Cir. 2013).The complaint does not state sufficient facts to support a plausible 1983 claim. The defendant alleges that he was "kidnap[p]ed" from his home without a warrant, threatened and extorted, "Du[e] Process was overlooked," his "Civil[] Rights [were] violated," and the Fourteenth Amendment was violated because there was "[n]o proof of [j]urisdiction" and "1 case is in[] multiple Court house[s]." ECF No. 1 at 3. He also cites several federal statutes that he claims were violated: 18 U.S.C. 1583 (statute making it a federal crime to, among other things, "kidnap[] or carr[y] away any other person, with the intent that such other person be sold into involuntary servitude, or held as a slave"); id. 1001 (statute making it a federal crime to, among other things, "make[] any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation" in "any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States"); id. 1343 (statute outlining federal wire fraud offenses); id. 41 (the plaintiff is likely referring to Chapter 41 of Title 18, which is titled "extortion and treats" and contains several sections establishing bribery and extortion offenses, not Section 41 of Title 18, which bans hunting and trapping on wildlife refuges). None of the plaintiff's claims are supported by sufficient factual allegations, including a description of the events that he claims constituted a violation of his constitutional rights and an explanation of the role each defendant allegedly played in those events. In addition, the plaintiff does not have standing to enforce federal criminal statutes such as those listed above in Title 18.For these reasons, the complaint is dismissed without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2). The Clerk is directed to close this case. If Plaintiff wishes to attempt to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, he may file a motion to reopen the case, together with a proposed Amended Complaint that addresses the deficiencies discussed in this order, on or before August 13, 2024. The plaintiff should consider contacting the Federal Pro Se Legal Assistance Clinic for assistance in drafting an amended complaint. Tel: 203-850-7720. See #https://nhlegal.org/other-resources for online intake form.Signed by Judge Michael P Shea on 7/13/2024. (Pierson, M)
|
| Filing 7 Notice of Option to Consent to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction.(Peterson, M) |
|
Filing 6
Standing Protective Order Signed by Judge Michael P Shea on 06/20/2024. (Peterson, M)
|
|
Filing 5
ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER FOR COUNSEL - PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER Signed by Judge Michael P Shea on 06/20/2024. (Peterson, M)
|
|
Filing 4
Order on Pretrial Deadlines: Amended Pleadings due by 8/19/2024. Discovery due by 12/20/2024. Dispositive Motions due by 1/24/2025. Signed by Clerk on 06/20/2024. (Peterson, M)
|
| 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 6/20/2024.(Chartier, A.) |
| Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Leron M. Stephens. (Chartier, A.) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Jane Grossman, James Kenefick, Milford Courthouse, New Haven Courthouse, New Haven Police Department, West Haven Police Department, filed by Leron M. Stephens. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Chartier, A.) |
| Judge Michael P Shea and Judge Robert M. Spector 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.
