Sullivan v. USA
| Anna Sullivan |
| USA |
| 3:2025cv01231 |
| July 31, 2025 |
| U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| Vernon D Oliver |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| No cause code entered |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on August 12, 2025. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 8
ORDER dismissing #1 complaint and denying as moot #2 motion to proceed in forma pauperis. On July 31, 2025, Plaintiff brought this action against the United States of America seeking 1 trillion million dollars in compensation. (ECF No. #1 at 1, 13.) She also seeks to have "the keys to the USA Country, Embassy Gates and Stock Market" as well as "all of the funds the [sic] World Stock Market." (Id. at 7.) Although Plaintiff does not state any bases for her claims in her complaint, in an attachment to her complaint, she describes a series of alleged wrongs inflicted upon her, ranging from the government allegedly preventing her from having a family to injuries during a surgery. (Id. at 17, 18.)The Court has authority to review and dismiss a complaint by a litigant seeking to proceed in forma pauperis if the complaint "is frivolous or malicious" or if it "fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted." 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B). In addition, the Court must dismiss a complaint if at any time it is clear that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).Plaintiff's 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., 941 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. See Salahuddin 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, 11-CV-4183 (SAS), 2011 WL 3847398, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 30, 2011).Pro se litigants, however, enjoy "special solicitude." Ruotolo v. I.R.S., 28 F.3d 6, 8 (2d Cir. 1994) (per curiam). A court must hold a pro se complaint to "less stringent standards[.]" Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). In other words, a court must interpret a pro se litigant's 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 Plaintiff's complaint, which is "rambling, verbose, [and] at times incoherent[.]" See Ruggiero v. Mobile Crisis Team, No. 12-CV-499, 2012 WL 4854660, at *4 (D. Conn. Oct. 11, 2012). Regardless of the merit of Plaintiff's 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.Accordingly, the complaint is subject to dismissal under 1915(e)(2)(B) because it fails to state a claim. The Court therefore denies as moot the pending motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismisses the case. Accordingly, Plaintiff's claims are dismissed. Leave to amend is denied because it is apparent that, even under a liberal reading of the complaint, repleading the claims would be futile. Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99, 112 (2d Cir. 2000). The clerk is respectfully directed to close this case. Signed by Judge Vernon D. Oliver on 8/12/2025. (Dao, J)
|
| Filing 7 Notice of Option to Consent to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction.(Imbriani, S) |
|
Filing 6
Standing Protective Order Signed by Judge Vernon D. Oliver on 7/31/2025.(Imbriani, S)
|
|
Filing 5
ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER FOR COUNSEL - PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER Signed by Judge Vernon D. Oliver on 7/31/2025.(Imbriani, S)
|
|
Filing 4
Order on Pretrial Deadlines: Amended Pleadings due by 9/29/2025, Discovery due by 1/30/2026, Dispositive Motions due by 3/6/2026. Signed by Clerk on 7/31/2025. (Imbriani, S)
|
| 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. (Sichanh, C) |
| 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 7/31/2025.(Gaskins, A) |
| Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Anna Sullivan. (Gaskins, A) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against USA, filed by Anna Sullivan.(Gaskins, A) Modified defendant name on 8/4/2025 (Murphy, T). |
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
| Search for this case: Sullivan v. USA | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Anna Sullivan | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: USA | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
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.
