Flatten v. Bristol et al
| Charlesa Flatten |
| Matthew Bristol and Jane Doe |
| 3:2025cv00599 |
| April 14, 2025 |
| U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| Vernon D Oliver |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on May 28, 2025. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 14
ORDER: The Court is in receipt of Plaintiffs motion for clarification. The Court previously dismissed this case for failure to state a plausible claim for relief. (ECF No. 3.) The Court affirms that its previous order was in reference to Plaintiffs complaint (ECF No. 1) and, again, reiterates that this case is closed. Signed by Judge Vernon D. Oliver on 5/28/2025. (Pastor, G)
|
| Filing 13 RESPONSE re 11 Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction, filed by Charlesa Flatten. (Gaskins, A) |
| Filing 12 MOTION for Clarification by Charlesa Flatten. (Attachments: #1 Envelope)(Gaskins, A) |
|
Filing 11
The Court is in receipt of Plaintiffs filings at ECF Nos. 9 and 10. The Court is unable to discern what relief Defendant sought.On April 14, 2025, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Matthew Bristol and Jane Doe, alleging a variety of unintelligible wrongs. ON April 16, 2025, the Court issued an order concluding that Plaintiffs complaint failed to state a claim. (ECF No. 3.) Accordingly, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file an amended complaint by April 26, 2025. Plaintiff failed to do so, and on April 28, 2028, 2025, the Court dismissed her Complaint. (ECF No. 28.)On May 6, 2025, Plaintiff filed an Emergency Motion for Preliminary Injunction to stay unlawful state court proceedings, seeming to add an additional defendant to her case, Nationstar Mortgage Company LLC. To the extent Plaintiff requests the Court to enjoin state court proceedings, the Court is barred from doing so by the Anti-Injunction Act and Younger abstention.Plaintiffs motion is barred by the Anti-Injunction Act because it seeks to enjoin a state court proceeding. The Anti-Injunction Act provides that [a] court of the United States may not grant an injunction to stay proceedings in a State court except as expressly authorized by Act of Congress, or where necessary in aid of its jurisdiction, or to protect or effectuate its judgments. 28 U.S.C. 2283; Kaplan v. Reed Smith LLP, 919 F.3d 154, 159 (2d Cir. 2019). [A]ny injunction against state court proceedings otherwise proper... must be based on one of the specific statutory exceptions [in the Act] if it is to be upheld. Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Bhd. of Locomotive Eng'rs, 398 U.S. 281, 287 (1970).Courts in this circuit consistently have held that the Anti-Injunction Act bars federal actions that attempt to enjoin state court foreclosure proceedings. See, e.g., Lau v. Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC, No. 23 Civ. 1385, 2024 WL 3219810, at *11 n.8 (S.D.N.Y. June 28, 2024).Plaintiff here appears to seek to enjoin the state court foreclosure proceeding. The motion for preliminary injunction does not fall within any of the three Anti-Injunction Act exceptions as (1) there is no congressional Act exempting foreclosure actions from the Anti-Injunction Act, (2) the state court proceeding is not in rem and (3) there have not been extensive federal court proceedings nor has this Court entered any judgments that would require protection from the state court. See Wyly, 697 F.3d at 137-39. Plaintiff's motion is therefore barred by the Anti-Injunction Act.Additionally, Plaintiffs motion is barred by Younger abstention. The Younger abstention doctrine cautions against enjoining or otherwise interfering in ongoing state proceedings. See Sprint Comms., Inc. v. Jacobs, 571 U.S 69, 77-78 (2013). Younger abstention is appropriate in three categories of state court proceedings: (1) state criminal prosecutions; (2) civil enforcement proceedings that are akin to criminal prosecutions and (3) civil proceedings that implicate a State's interest in enforcing the orders and judgments of its courts. Sprint, 571 U.S. at 72-73. Younger abstention is grounded partly on traditional principles of equity, but primarily on the even more vital consideration of comity, reflecting a proper respect for state functions, a recognition of the... separate state governments, and a... belief that the National Government will fare best if the States and their institutions are left free to perform their separate functions in their separate ways. Trump v. Vance, 941 F.3d 631, 637 (2d Cir. 2019), aff'd and remanded, 591 U.S. 786 (2020).Younger abstention is applicable to attempts to enjoin state court foreclosure proceedings, as foreclosure actions concern the disposition of real property and hence implicate important state interests, and there is no reason to doubt that the state proceedings provide the plaintiff with an adequate forum to make the arguments he seeks to raise in this court. Ochei, 2020 WL 528705, at *4.Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiffs motion and reiterates that Plaintiffs case is closed. Signed by Judge Vernon D. Oliver on 5/12/2025. (Pastor, G)
|
| Filing 10 EMERGENCY MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Charlesa Flatten. Responses due by 5/27/2025 (Gaskins, A) |
| Filing 9 NOTICE of Misidentification and Request for Judicial Clarification by Charlesa Flatten (Attachments: #1 Envelope)(Gaskins, A) |
|
Filing 8
ORDER: On April 16, 2025, the Court advised Plaintiff that the failure to amend her complaint by April 26, 2025, would result in dismissal of her complaint. Plaintiff has failed to do so. Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed. Signed by Judge Vernon D. Oliver on 4/28/2025.(Pastor, G) Modified on 5/9/2025 to correct date from April 16 to April 26. (Samson, J).
|
| Set Deadlines: Amended Pleadings due by 4/26/2025 (Samson, J) |
|
Filing 3
ORDER. Plaintiffs complaint (ECF No. 1.) fails to state a plausible claim for relief. Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that [a] pleading that states a claim for relief must contain, among other things, a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. Pursuant to Rule 8, a plaintiff must allege enough information to allow the defendant to have a fair understanding of what the plaintiff is complaining about and to know whether there is a legal basis for recovery.Ricciuti v. New York City Transit Auth.,41 F.2d 119, 123 (2d Cir. 1991).A district court may strike portions of a complaint that do not comply with Rule 8; it may even dismiss in its entirety a complaint that does not comply with Rule 8.SeeSalahuddin v. Cuomo,861 F.2d 40, 42 (2d Cir. 1988);see also Leonhard v. United States, 633 F.2d 599, 609 n.11 (2d Cir. 1980). Dismissal... is usually reserved for those cases in which the complaint is so confused, ambiguous, vague, or otherwise unintelligible that its true substance, if any, is well disguised.Salahuddin,861 F.2d at 42. Courts in the Second Circuit regularly dismiss prolix, unintelligible, [and] speculative complaints that needlessly ramble[.]Fisch v. Consulate General of Republic of Poland, Nos. 11-CV-4182, 11-CV-4183 (SAS), 2011 WL 3847398, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 30, 2011).Pro selitigants, however, enjoy special solicitude.Ruotolo v. I.R.S.9, 28 F.3d 6, 8 (2d Cir. 1994) (per curiam). A court must hold apro secomplaint to less stringent standards[.]Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). In other words, a court must interpret apro selitigants submissions to raise the strongest arguments that they suggest.Publicola v. Lomenzo, 54 F.4th 108, 111 (2d Cir. 2022).This special solicitude cannot save the current version of Plaintiffs complaint, which is rambling, verbose, [and] at times incoherent[.]See Ruggiero v. Mobile Crisis Team, No. 12-CV-499 (VLB), 2012 WL 4854660, at *4 (D. Conn. Oct. 11, 2012). Interspersed throughout these claims are incomprehensible insults and asides. Regardless of the merit of Plaintiffs claims, the complaint is indisputably prolix and often unintelligible.Fisch, 2011 WL 3847398, at *2. This Court is not obliged to wade through endless pages of narrative to discern the causes of action asserted and the relief sought.Id.ByApril 26, 2025, Plaintiff may file an amended complaint that complies with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The amended complaint should present a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2);see also Pascarella v. Ten-Ex, Inc. et al., No. 23-CV-00849 (MPS), Dkt. No. 10 (D. Conn. June 28, 2023) (requiring apro seplaintiff to file an amended complaint or show cause why the court should not dismiss the case for failure to state a claim). Failure to amend byApril 26, 2025, will result in dismissal. Signed by Judge Vernon D. Oliver on 4/16/2025. (Pastor, G) Modified on 4/17/2025 to adit docket text per chambers (Samson, J).
|
| Filing 7 Notice of Option to Consent to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction.(Gaskins, A) |
|
Filing 6
Standing Protective Order Signed by Judge Vernon D. Oliver on 4/14/2025.(Gaskins, A)
|
|
Filing 5
ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER FOR COUNSEL - PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER Signed by Judge Vernon D. Oliver on 4/14/2025.(Gaskins, A)
|
|
Filing 4
Order on Pretrial Deadlines: Amended Pleadings due by 6/13/2025 Discovery due by 10/14/2025 Dispositive Motions due by 11/18/2025 Signed by Clerk on 4/14/2025.(Gaskins, A)
|
| Filing 2 Notice: Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1(b), a disclosure statement required under Rule 7.1(a) 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 4/14/2025. (Peterson, M) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Matthew Bristol, Jane Doe, filed by Charlesa Flatten. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Envelope) (Peterson, M) |
| Filing fee received from Charlesa Flatten: $ 405.00, receipt number 22230 (Peterson, M) |
| CASE ASSIGNMENT: District Judge Vernon D. Oliver assigned to the case. If the District Judge issues an Order of Referral to a Magistrate Judge for any matter other than settlement, the matter will be referred to Magistrate Judge Thomas O. Farrish. (Velez, F) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. 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.
