Kulmann v. Naugatuck Probate Court Staff et al
| Linda Kulmann and Linda Ceniccola-Kulmann |
| Naugatuck Probate Court Staff, Rosa Rebimbas, Matthew Jaloweic, Americo Carchia, Stephanie Pelligrini, Natalie Rinaldi and Timothy Sullivan |
| 3:2025cv00621 |
| April 18, 2025 |
| U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| Omar A Williams |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on September 16, 2025. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 21 CLERK'S CERTIFICATE RE: INDEX AND RECORD ON APPEAL re: #20 Notice of Appeal. The attached docket sheet is hereby certified as the entire Index/Record on Appeal in this matter and electronically sent to the Court of Appeals, with the exception of any manually filed documents as noted below. Dinah Milton Kinney, Clerk. Documents manually filed not included in this transmission: None. (Kelsey, N) |
| Filing 20 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 18 ORDER Remanding Case to State Court, denying Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, dismissing Motion to Stay Proceedings in State Court, and dismissing Motion for Default Entry, by Linda Kulmann. (Kelsey, N) |
| Filing 19 MOTION to Disqualify/Recuse Judge by Linda Kulmann. (Kelsey, N) |
Filing 18
ORDER Remanding Case to State Court, denying Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, ECF No. #2 , dismissing Motion to Stay Proceedings in State Court, ECF No. #3 , and dismissing Motion for Default Entry, ECF No. #13 . While her briefings are unclear, the court gathers that Plaintiff seeks to remove a Connecticut state probate court case (Case No. 22-00432), see ECF No. 1 at 1, and a Florida state probate court case (Case No. PRC 24-0711), see ECF No. 3 at 3, to federal court. Both matters concern the estate of Remo Ceniccola, Plaintiff's father. Since bringing this action, Plaintiff also has filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. #2 , a motion to stay proceedings in state court, ECF No. #3 , a motion for default entry, ECF No. #13 , and an incomplete appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, ECF No. #14 (which was administratively closed because the undersigned had not yet issued any final judgment or appealable order, see ECF No. #17 ). Because Plaintiff seeks to commence this action without prepaying filing and administrative fees, the court shall evaluate whether the action is "(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." 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)(iii); see Spencer v. Doe, 139 F.3d 107, 110-11 (2d Cir. 1998). Here Plaintiff seeks to remove two matters pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1443. Removal of state civil or criminal prosecution to federal court under this statue is only appropriate "in narrow circumstances." In re Fischer, No. 19-CV-3793(JS)(ARL), 2019 WL 3281127, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. July 18, 2019). For example, Section 1443(1) only permits removal where the asserted civil right relates to racial equality. See id. at *1-*2. The burden is on the removing party to prove that it was met the requirements for removal, and the court finds that Plaintiff has failed to meet this burden. See id. (internal citation omitted). Thus, removal is inappropriate, and these cases hereby are remanded to state court. Next, the court finds that Plaintiff has materially misrepresented her litigation history to the court in her financial affidavit. ECF No. 2 at 6. Litigants seeking to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915 are directed to disclose the case number, caption, and disposition of all cases they have previously filed in federal court. See id. Disclosure is necessary because courts have a duty to deny IFP status to plaintiffs that have abused that status in the past. See In re Sindram, 498 U.S. 177, 179-80 (1991). This is because pro se litigants "have a greater capacity than most to disrupt the fair allocation of judicial resources because they are not subject to the financial considerationsfiling fees and attorney's feesthat deter other litigants from filing frivolous petitions." Id. at 180. Thus, complete and accurate disclosure of a plaintiffs litigation history is essential to the court's "goal of fairly dispensing justice." See id. at 179. Here, Plaintiff has egregiously misrepresented her litigation history. In the financial affidavit in support of her IFP motion, she was prompted to state whether she has "ever filed a case in federal court," and notified that "All prior cases must be listed." ECF No. 2 at 6 (emphasis in original). Where she was required under penalty of perjury to list each case, Plaintiff wrote, "I don't think so," despite the fact that, as of April 18, 2025, when the affidavit was signed, she had filed no fewer than six cases in the District of Connecticut. Id. Two of those cases were filed one week prior on April 11, 2025, leading the court to conclude that Plaintiff intentionally omitted her litigation history and sought to feign ignorance by attesting that she did not "think" she ever filed a case in federal court before. The undersigned outlines the extent of Plaintiff's misrepresentations in her various IFP motions at docket entry 11 in the matter Kulmann v. Sullivan (25-cv-596-OAW). In light of the foregoing, the court reiterates a warning to Plaintiff that it recently issued to her in a separate action: if Plaintiff either fails to completely and accurately represent her history of previous litigation within any future filings in federal court (including but not limited to conduct such as: claiming an inability to remember those prior cases, failure to list each such prior case, or failing to list the disposition of each such case), or if she continues to relitigate issues already reviewed and decided (including by removing the same state cases to federal court) she may be added to the District of Connecticut's prohibited filers list, and this court also may invoke its inherent authority to issue sanctions. See Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (1991). Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, ECF No. 2, is denied, and her Motion to Stay Proceedings in State Court, ECF No. 3, and Motion for Default Entry, ECF No. 13, are dismissed as moot. The Clerk of Court respectfully is asked to close this case. Signed by Judge Omar A. Williams on 9/2/25. (Wagner, R)
|
| Filing 17 MANDATE of USCA dated 08/07/2025: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the appeal is administratively closed, as facially defective re #14 Notice of Appeal filed by Linda Kulmann. (Kelsey, N) |
| Filing 16 CLERK'S CERTIFICATE RE: INDEX AND RECORD ON APPEAL re: #14 Notice of Appeal. The attached docket sheet is hereby certified as the entire Index/Record on Appeal in this matter and electronically sent to the Court of Appeals, with the exception of any manually filed documents as noted below. Dinah Milton Kinney, Clerk. Documents manually filed not included in this transmission: None. (Kelsey, N) |
| Filing 15 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Linda Kulmann re #13 MOTION for Default Entry 55(a) as to the Defendants, #14 Notice of Appeal. (Kelsey, N) |
| Filing 14 NOTICE OF APPEAL by Linda Kulmann. (Kelsey, N) |
| Filing 13 MOTION for Default Entry 55(a); Failure to Appear as to the Defendants by Linda Kulmann. (Kelsey, N) |
| Filing 12 Amended Pleadings by Linda Kulmann (Gaskins, A) |
| Filing 11 Consent to Electronic Notice by Linda Kulmann (Kelsey, N) |
| Filing 10 NOTICE of Change of Address by Linda Kulmann. (Kelsey, N) |
|
Filing 9
Standing Order re: Letters. Signed by Judge Omar A. Williams on 04/18/2025. (Kelsey, N)
|
| Filing 8 Notice of Option to Consent to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction. (Kelsey, N) |
|
Filing 7
Standing Protective Order Signed by Judge Omar A. Williams on 04/18/2025. (Kelsey, N)
|
|
Filing 6
ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER FOR COUNSEL - PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER Signed by Judge Omar A. Williams on 04/18/2025. (Kelsey, N)
|
|
Filing 5
Order on Pretrial Deadlines: Amended Pleadings due by 6/17/2025; Discovery due by 10/20/2025; Dispositive Motions due by 11/24/2025, Signed by Clerk on 04/18/2025. (Kelsey, N)
|
| Filing 4 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 04/18/2025. (Kelsey, N) |
| Filing 3 MOTION to Stay of Proceedings in State Court by Linda Kulmann. Responses due by 5/9/2025 (Kelsey, N) |
| Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Linda Kulmann. (Kelsey, N) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL by Linda Kulmann from Naugatuck Probate Court, case number 22-00432, filed by Linda Kulmann. (Kelsey, N) |
| CASE ASSIGNMENT: District Judge Omar A. Williams 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 Robert A. Richardson. (Sichanh, C) |
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.
