United States District Court, D. Connecticut
RULING DISMISSING THE CASE SUA SPONTE
A. Bolden United States District Judge
L. Hull (“Plaintiff”) initiated this pro
se action on September 1, 2017, filing both a complaint
and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. This case
is DISMISSED and all other pending motions
are therefore DENIED as moot.
Hull filed this action pro se, alleging that
defendants “actively or passively participated”
in the violation of twelve separate sections of the United
States Code. Compl., ECF No. 1 at 2. He seeks “$1, 000
and emotional damages” as a remedy. Id. He
subsequently filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis. Mot. to Proceed In Forma Pauperis,
ECF No. 4, and a motion to seal the case, requesting the case
be sealed because it contained “sensitive and
confidential information of minors.” First Mot. to
Seal, ECF No. 2. Additionally, Mr. Hull sought a temporary
restraining order on September 1, 2017, stating only that
“all parties preserve all evidence, including
emails.” First Mot. for Temporary Restraining Order,
ECF No. 3.
addition, Mr. Hull sought a second temporary restraining
order in order to prevent parties in this case from
conferring with parties in two other matters he recently
filed with the court. Second Mot. For Temporary Restraining
Order, ECF No. 10.
party files an application to proceed in forma
pauperis, a court must engage in a two-step process of
review. See Bey v. Syracuse University, 155 F.R.D.
413, 413 (N.D.N.Y. 1994). First, a court must determine
whether the litigant qualifies to proceed in forma
pauperis based on his or her economic status. 28 U.S.C
§ 1915. Second, a court must determine whether the cause
of action is without merit. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). A
court must dismiss the case if, “at any time” it
determines the action is “frivolous or
malicious” or “fails to state a claim on which
relief may be granted.” Id. at §
plaintiff appears pro se, the complaint must be
liberally construed in the plaintiff's favor and must be
held to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings
drafted by lawyers. Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9
(1980); Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976).
“The power to dismiss sua sponte must be
reserved for cases in which a pro se complaint is so
frivolous that, construing the complaint under the liberal
rules applicable to pro se complaints, it is
unmistakably clear that the court lacks jurisdiction or that
the claims are lacking in merit.” Mendlow v. Seven
Locks Facility, 86 F.Supp.2d 55, 57 (D. Conn. 2000).
careful review of the Notice of Removal, Third Party
Complaints, and the related motion filings, the Court finds
Mr. Hull's claims must be dismissed. See 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); Fitzgerald v. First East
Seventh Street Tenants Corp. et al, 221 F.3d 362, 363
(2d Cir. 2000) (noting that dismissal is mandatory for
frivolous claims under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)). First,
despite its careful review and liberally construing the
pleadings as required, the Court is unable to identify any
factual allegations that would state a recognized cause of
action against the plaintiffs or third-party defendants.
Second, the pleadings are vague and merely cite federal or
state statutes without any further explanation. As this Court
has previously held, pleadings that are “fatally vague,
ambiguous, or otherwise unintelligible” are properly
subject to dismissal as “frivolous.” Gonzalez
v. Ocwen Home Loan Servicing, 74 F.Supp.3d 504, 520 (D.
Conn. 2015), reconsideration denied, No. 3:14-CV-53
(CSH), 2015 WL 2124365 (D. Conn. May 6, 2015), and
aff'd sub nom. Gonzalez v. Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust
Co., 632 F.App'x 32 (2d Cir. 2016).
case therefore DISMISSED. The Clerk of the
Court is directed to enter judgment for Defendant and close
 These matters are Hull v.
Ponzanietal., 3:17-cv-01472-VAB (D.Conn, filed Aug. 1,
2017) and Hull v. Ponzani et al., 3:17-cv-01473-VAB
(D.Conn, filed Sept. 1, 2017).
 The term “frivolous” is
not intended to be insulting or demeaning; it is a term of
art that has a precise meaning. A claim is said to be
frivolous if it does not have an arguable basis in law or
fact. See ...