United States District Court, D. Connecticut
RULING ON PENDING MOTIONS
Victor A. Bolden United States District Judge
Plaintiff, Dashante Scott Jones, has filed ten motions seeking various relief. This ruling addresses those motions. The Court notes that, on November 12, 2015, Mr. Jones filed an interlocutory appeal of the denial of his motion for reconsideration. Doc. #26. The motion for reconsideration related to the denial of Mr. Jones’ motion for appointment of counsel. As the ruling appealed from is not a final order and this Court has not certified an interlocutory appeal, the notice of appeal does not deprive this Court of jurisdiction to entertain Mr. Jones’ motions. See, e.g., United States v. Rodgers, 101 F.3d 247, 252 (2d Cir. 1996) (deeming a notice of appeal from a non-final order as “premature” and a “nullity, ” and holding that the notice of appeal did not divest the district court of jurisdiction); Leonhard v. United States, 633 F.2d 599, 610 (2d Cir. 1980) (“we see no efficiency to be gained by allowing a party arbitrarily to halt the district court proceedings by filing a plainly unauthorized notice which confers on this Court the power to do nothing but dismiss the appeal” and finding retention of jurisdiction in the district court “the preferable view”).
I. Motion to Temporarily Remove Immunity Rights [Doc. #25]
Mr. Jones states that Attorney General John Doe told his counselor not to give Mr. Jones his legal work for this and other cases. Mr. Jones states that this action prevented him from preparing for trial. He characterizes Attorney General Doe’s actions as treasonous and asks the Court to remove Attorney General Doe’s immunity rights during the pendency of this case. Attorney General Doe is not a defendant in this case.
Mr. Jones cites no authority for his request and research reveals none. Thus, his motion is denied. If Mr. Jones wishes to pursue a claim against Attorney General Doe, he should file a new case identifying Attorney General Doe by name. While litigating that case, Mr. Jones may argue that Attorney General Doe’s actions are not protected by any form of immunity.
II. Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. #46]
Mr. Jones has filed a motion for summary judgment to which he attached various documents. Rule 56(a)1, D. Conn. L. Civ. R., requires that a motion for summary judgment be accompanied by “a document entitled ‘Local Rule 56(a)1 Statement, ’ which sets forth in separately numbered paragraphs meeting the requirements of Local Rule 56(a)3 a concise statement of each material fact as to which the moving party contends there is no genuine issue to be tried.” Rule 56(a)3 requires that each statement in the Rule 56(a)1 Statement “must be followed by a specific citation to (1) the affidavit of a witness competent to testify as to the facts at trial and/or (2) evidence that would be admissible at trial.” The requirement applies to attorneys and pro se litigants.
Mr. Jones has not provided the required Local Rule 56(a)1 Statement. Accordingly, his motion for summary judgment is denied without prejudice to refiling in proper form.
III. Motion to Amend/Correct Amended Complaint [Doc. #47]
Mr. Jones notes that his claims against the first named plaintiff, Scarlett Forbes, have been dismissed. He asks the Court to remove her from the case caption and change the case caption to read Jones v. Snyder, et al. Mr. Jones’ motion is granted. However, although Officer Snyder is the first named defendant on the original complaint who has not been dismissed, when the parties were entered on the docket the order was slightly different. On the docket, the first listed defendant who has not been dismissed from the case is Lieutenant Waldron. For consistency, the Clerk is directed to change the case name to Jones v. Waldron, et al.
IV. Motion re Lie Detector Testing [Doc. #48]
Mr. Jones asks the Court to order that he and defendants Bogue and Waldron submit to lie detector tests with questions drafted by Mr. Jones at Court expense. Mr. Jones also requests that whoever fails the test be required to reimburse the Court for the cost of the test. Courts considering similar requests have denied them as lacking merit. See Dixon v. Mohr, No. 1:12-cv-294, 2012 WL 1902548, at *3, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73226, at *8 (S.D. Ohio May 25, 2012) (denying as frivolous plaintiff’s motion to have lie detector test administered to himself and all defendants); Cox v. LeBlanc, No. 11-0386-BAJ-CN, 2011 WL 7452130, at *3 n.7, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153746, at *15 n.7 (M.D. La. Dec. 9, 2011) (rejecting plaintiff’s request to take lie detector test to establish truth of allegations because he had no entitlement to that relief). Mr. Jones has provided no authority demonstrating his entitlement to the relief he seeks. Accordingly, his motion is denied.
V. “Motion to Joint Doctrine and Property Leans” [Doc. #49]
In this motion, Mr. Jones asks the Court to impose property liens and freeze the bank accounts of the defendants to prevent them from withdrawing monies from their accounts to avoid paying a judgment in this case. He states that he brings this motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 18(a). That rule, however, ...