Sullivan v. United States Government et al
| Anna Sullivan |
| United States Government, State of Connecticut, Hartford Police, Connecticut National Guard, West Hartford Police, Connecticut Police, FBI and Secret Service |
| 3:2025cv00921 |
| June 2, 2025 |
| U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| Sarala V Nagala |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| No cause code entered |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on July 15, 2025. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 18
ORDER denying #16 Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. The Court dismissed this action on June 30, 2025, and closed this case. Plaintiff has now filed another motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. As Plaintiff's case before this Court is closed, the Court will not consider this filing or additional filings in this matter absent a properly-supported motion to reopen the case. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 7/15/2025. (Lum, A)
|
|
Filing 17
ORDER denying #15 Motion to Reopen. Plaintiff has filed a document labeled "motion to reopen" that contains wide-ranging allegations, anatomy diagrams, and annotated photos of Jeff Bezos. The Court construes Plaintiff's motion to reopen this case as a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). That rule provides, in relevant part: "On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for any reason that justifies relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6). A federal court has "broad authority" under this subsection "to relieve a party from a final judgment upon such terms as are just." Liljeberg v. Health Servs. Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 863 (1988) (cleaned up). The Second Circuit cautions, however, that motions for relief from judgment are generally "not favored" and are "properly granted only upon a showing of exceptional circumstances." United States v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, 247 F.3d 370, 391 (2d Cir. 2001). The burden of proof falls on the party seeking relief from the judgment. Id.Plaintiff has failed to show that exceptional circumstances exist here. Instead, she has continued to file documents that are not responsive to the Court's basis of dismissal. See ECF No. 14. Plaintiff, therefore, has not met her burden of proof. Plaintiff's motion to reopen is DENIED. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 7/15/2025. (Lum, A)
|
| Filing 16 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Anna Sullivan. (Gaskins, A) |
| Filing 15 MOTION to Reopen Case by Anna Sullivan. Responses due by 8/1/2025 (Attachments: #1 Exhibit)(Gaskins, A) |
|
Filing 14
ORDER. The Court dismissed this action without prejudice to Plaintiff filing a motion to reopen this case on or before August 6, 2025. ECF No. 12. The Court noted that Plaintiff's motion to reopen must explain the reasons for her noncompliance with the Court's previously-set deadlines. Plaintiff has now filed one page of a financial affidavit form, followed by pages of annotated photographs and anatomy depictions. ECF No. #13 . The filing is not a motion to reopen, and does not address Plaintiff's noncompliance with the Court's deadlines, so the Court will not consider reopening the case in response to the filing. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 7/11/2025. (Lum, A)
|
| Filing 13 AFFIDAVIT Signed By Anna Sullivan filed by Anna Sullivan. (Gaskins, A) |
|
Filing 12
ORDER. Plaintiff was ordered to file a renewed motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the filing fee by June 24, 2025. To date, she has taken neither action, nor filed a motion for extension of time. Thus, the Court dismisses this action without prejudice and the Clerk is directed to close this case. The dismissal is without prejudice to Plaintiff filing a motion to reopen this case on or before August 6, 2025. Plaintiff's motion to reopen must explain the reasons for her noncompliance with the Court's deadlines. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 6/30/2025.(Lum, A)
|
|
Filing 11
ORDER denying as moot #10 Redacted Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. As the Court denied the unredacted version of this motion filed at ECF No. #2 , see ECF No. 8, the Court finds this motion moot. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 6/13/2025. (Lum, A)
|
| Filing 10 Redacted Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis by Anna Sullivan. (Bergeson, S) |
| Set Deadlines: IFP Dismissal due by 6/24/2025 (Bergeson, S) |
|
Filing 9
ORDER. Pursuant to Local Rule 5(e), the Clerk of the Court is directed to redact the reference to Plaintiff's minor child's name on pages 3 and 6 of the Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis filed at ECF No. 2, and refile the redacted version of the motion labeled on the docket as "Redacted Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis." The Clerk of the Court is also directed to seal ECF No. 2, as pages 3 and 6 contain the full name and age of Plaintiff's minor child. As a redacted version of the motion will be publicly available, the sealing is narrowly tailored to serve the objective of protecting the privacy of the minor child.The Court notes that this is the seventh time the Court has had to seal a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis due to Plaintiff's use of her minor child's full name, as she has done so in other cases on the Court's docket. See 3:25-cv-00385 (SVN) at ECF Nos. 10, 17, 24; 3:25-cv-00764 (SVN) at ECF Nos. 5, 16, 20. Each time, the Court has ordered the motion sealed and redacted. In any renewed motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this case, Plaintiff must not use the full name of her minor child. If she fails to comply with this Order, the Court will reject the motion. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 6/10/2025. (Lum, A)
|
|
Filing 8
ORDER denying without prejudice #2 Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. In her motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, Plaintiff represents that she has no current or past employment, no cash on hand or in any bank accounts, no car or other source of income, and receives no public benefits. The only asset Plaintiff reports is a residential property, but Plaintiff fails to provide the value of the property, as required by the application form. To properly evaluate Plaintiff's eligibility for in forma pauperis status, the Court needs a full picture of all encumbrances on the home and its value. See, e.g., Emiabata v. Bartolomeo, No. 3:21-cv-776 (OAW) (TOF), 2022 WL 4080348, at *4 (D. Conn. Jan. 3, 2022) (evaluating whether the plaintiff requesting in forma pauperis status could easily tap into home equity to pay the filing fee). Plaintiff also needs to completely and accurately answer each question on any subsequent in forma pauperis motions. Accordingly, the motion is denied without prejudice to refiling to address these deficiencies. Plaintiff must file a renewed motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the filing fee on or before June 24, 2025. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 6/10/2025. (Lum, A)
|
| Filing 7 Notice of Option to Consent to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction.(Gaskins, A) |
|
Filing 6
Standing Protective Order Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 6/2/2025.(Gaskins, A)
|
|
Filing 5
ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER FOR COUNSEL - PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 6/2/2025.(Gaskins, A)
|
|
Filing 4
Order on Pretrial Deadlines: Amended Pleadings due by 8/1/2025 Discovery due by 12/2/2025 Dispositive Motions due by 1/6/2026 Signed by Clerk on 6/2/2025.(Gaskins, A)
|
| Filing 3 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 6/2/2025.(Gaskins, A) |
| Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Anna Sullivan. (Gaskins, A) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Connecticut National Guard, Connecticut Police, FBI, Hartford Police, Secret Service, State of Connecticut, United States Government, West Hartford Police, filed by Anna Sullivan. (Attachments: #1 attachments)(Gaskins, A) |
| CASE ASSIGNMENT: District Judge Sarala V. Nagala 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 S. Dave Vatti. (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.
