Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Chapdelaine v. Town of Eastford

United States District Court, D. Connecticut

September 6, 2016

DARLENE A. CHAPDELAINE Plaintiff,
v.
TOWN OF EASTFORD, ET AL. Defendants.

          RULING AND ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE

          Michael P. Shea, U.S.D.J.

         Plaintiff Darlene Chapdelaine, proceeding pro se, brings her fifth amended complaint in this action against the Town of Eastford, Connecticut (the “Town”), the Town Inland Wetlands Watercourse Commission (“IWWC”), and 32 individuals (together, “Defendants”). According to Chapdelaine, she lived at 211 Eastford Road in Eastford, Connecticut from fall 2010 until December 2014. (Fifth Am. Compl., ECF No. 91 ¶ 30.) She alleges that the IWWC discriminated against her in 2011 by denying her request to conduct agricultural activities - and that this denial ultimately led to her eviction. (Id.) She also alleges that Defendants have harassed her and invaded her privacy. (Id.) In her 92-page complaint, Chapdelaine brings 23 counts, each against all 34 Defendants and each pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Section 1983”). (Id.) For the reasons set forth below, the complaint is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice as to all counts and all Defendants.

         I. Procedural Background

         On October 24, 2014, Chapdelaine initiated a nearly identical case against many of the Defendants, which this Court dismissed on May 20, 2015, for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. (Ruling on Pending Motions, Chapdelaine v. Duncan et al., 14-cv-1581-MPS, ECF No. 12 (“First Dismissal”).) However, the Court granted Chapdelaine leave to replead her claims “provided that she plead, consistent with Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, specific facts showing that there are plausible, timely causes of action as to any defendants except the judicial defendants, who are plainly immune from this lawsuit.” Id.

         Rather than replead, Chapdelaine filed this action on August 14, 2015. (ECF No. 1.) She filed a first amended complaint on September 3, 2015 (ECF No. 10) and a second amended complaint on September 16, 2015. (ECF No. 13.) On October 20, 2015, this Court again dismissed Chapdelaine's complaint for failure to comply with Fed.R.Civ.P. 8 and this Court's earlier ruling, granting her leave to file yet another amended complaint within 21 days. (ECF No. 23.) Chapdelaine filed a third amended complaint on November 5, 2015 (ECF No. 25), a fourth amended complaint on November 9, 2015 (ECF No. 28), and the present, fifth amended complaint, which the Court granted her leave to file on February 22, 2016. (ECF Nos. 90-91.) Chapdelaine has also filed multiple, repetitive documents in the case, leading the Court to revoke her electronic filing privileges. (ECF No. 90.)

         In response to the fifth amended complaint, many of the defendants have filed motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), insufficient process under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(5), and failure to meet the pleading requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 8 despite multiple opportunities to amend provided by the court. (ECF Nos. 98-105, 108, 110, 113-14, 116-17, 120-24.)

         II. Defendants and Claims

         There are 34 defendants listed under “Parties” in the fifth amended complaint. (ECF No. 91 at 3.) Those defendants are not identical to the defendants listed at the end of the complaint in a “List of Parties” (Id. at 92), and also differ from the parties listed in earlier iterations of the complaint in this case. (ECF Nos. 1, 10, 13, 23, 25.) Some of the defendants[1] allege that they were never properly served by Chapdelaine, and some have never appeared.[2] Chapdelaine's own Acknowledgement of Service Executed at most attests to serving of 21 of the 34 defendants. (ECF No. 38.) The defendants listed at the beginning of the complaint are:

• The Town of Eastford, CT (“Town”)
• The Town of Eastford Inland Wetlands Watercourse Commission (“IWWC”)
• Current and past members of the IWWC: Georgianne Copley, Denis Day, Marcia Day, Thomas DeJohn, Claudia Hixson, Deborah Lee, and Robert Torcellini - also a selectman (“IWWC member defendants”)
• Current and past members of the Eastford Board of Selectmen: Arthur Brodeur, Alan Platt, Robert Torcellini - also an IWWC member, Brenda Willis (“Board of Selectmen defendants”)
• Kenneth Andersen, Daniel Belanger, Rhonda Belanger, Mark Branse, Christopher Bowen, Karen Butts, Mary Duncan, Adrian Genovesio, Raymond Green, John Revill, Deborah Torcellini, Julia Torcellini, Paul Torcellini, Cecelia Vaida, Paul Vaida, Gary Warren, Amy Whitehouse, Christopher Whitehouse, Craig Whitehouse, Raymond Whitehouse, Rebecca Whitehouse, and Robert Willis (“private defendants”)

         Chapdelaine brings 23 counts against all of the above defendants, all invoking Section 1983:

1. Retaliation for Petitioning
2. Free Speech
3. Unlawful Search
4. Conspiracy
5. Refusing or Neglecting to Prevent
6. Violation of the Connecticut Constitution Article First Sections 1, 4, 7, 9, 10 & 11
7. Abuse of Process
8. Conspiracy to Abuse Legal Process
9. Intentional Infliction of Emotional ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.