United States District Court, D. Connecticut
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER
Jeffrey Alker Meyer United States District Judge.
Jayvell-Jones:Washington, who was incarcerated when he filed
this action but currently resides in Bridgeport, Connecticut,
has filed this complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiff names over 100 defendants, including police
officers, state court judges, state marshals, public
defenders, prosecutors, a court reporter, the Mayor of
Bridgeport, and several news reporters. After initial review,
I will dismiss the complaint with leave to file an amended
complaint to the extent plaintiff wishes to file a coherent
complaint against one or more defendants who may be properly
joined in one action.
complaint runs 69 pages long and features about 270
single-spaced paragraphs. Doc. #1. Plaintiff has additionally
filed 441 pages of exhibits in support of his complaint. Doc.
#10. The complaint includes allegations spanning a time
period from July 2016 through November 2017 against 137
defendants, most of whom are identified simply as Jane or
John Doe. Doc. #1 at 1-5. Each defendant's address is
listed as being in “BRIDGEPORT, Connecticut Republic,
near .” Ibid. Plaintiff describes
A[n] American National, A free Common Man, being held and
compelled to participate with unlawful proceedings to remove
the threat of violence from his life under threat, Coercion,
Protest, and duress, against his will, and being denied of
his Creator Endowed rights, Life, Liberty and Pursuit of
Happiness Protected and Secured by the United States
Constitution, violating Plaintiff's legal Rights, causing
him Injury, loss, and harm by people of the CITY OF
BRIDGEPORT, STATE OF CONNECTICUT, in their individual
capacity who at all times was relevant to this Complaint.
Id. at 7 (¶ 3).
the complaint concerns two of plaintiff's criminal cases
in state court. The first began with his arrest and the
search of his place of business by Bridgeport police
detectives on July 16, 2016, pursuant to a warrant issued the
previous day by a state court judge. Id. at 7-22,
25-44. This case was ultimately resolved when plaintiff
pleaded guilty to charges of violating probation, interfering
with an officer, and failure to appear on May 3, 2017.
See State v. Washington, F02B-CR16-0289437-S (Conn.
Super. Ct.); State v. Washington,
F02B-CR16-0293669-S (Conn. Super. Ct.).
second case began with plaintiff's arrest and the search
of his home and place of business on July 28, 2017, pursuant
to a warrant issued that same day by another state court
judge. Doc. #1 at 46-57, 59-61. Plaintiff was charged with
attempted murder, assault, illegal possession of a firearm,
and illegal discharge of a firearm; this case does not appear
to have been resolved. See State v. Washington,
FBT-CR17-0297610-T (Conn. Super. Ct.).
complaint also includes allegations about two incidents, on
November 29, 2016, and February 10, 2017, when Bridgeport
police officers allegedly stopped plaintiff as he drove
around Bridgeport. Doc. #1 at 23-25, 35. In addition, the
complaint includes allegations pertaining to another state
court matter involving a protective or restraining order
issued based on allegedly “unsubstantiated” and
“malicious” allegations against plaintiff by one
Quesha Rogers. Id. at 58, 65-67.
complaint additionally includes claims against reporters with
News Channel 12 and the Connecticut Post regarding their
coverage of his arrests and prosecution. Id. at 11,
62-64. Finally, the complaint discusses the actions plaintiff
has already taken to pursue his various grievances, including
filing a complaint with the Connecticut Grievance Committee,
the Connecticut Judiciary Committee, and with the Bridgeport
Police Department Internal Affairs Unit. Id. at
plaintiff's complaint raises numerous specific
allegations of wrongdoing, the overall thrust appears to be
that the various Connecticut state officials with whom
plaintiff interacted in the course of his dealings with the
criminal justice system acted without what plaintiff
considers to be proper authority. One judge, for example,
allegedly acted “without consent from Congress in the
form of a certified delegation of authority order, a sworn
and subscribed OATH OF OFFICE, a oath of ethics, or a bond
number ever being presented” when she authorized what
plaintiff describes as “a unlawful illegal and
frivolous search and seizure warrant.” Id. at
7. Versions of this same litany-describing the ways in which
plaintiff believes that Connecticut officials should have
demonstrated their legitimate authority-recur many times
throughout the complaint. Because plaintiff views all of the
court proceedings in his cases to have been fundamentally
illegitimate in this fashion, he alleges that everyone who
took part- from the police officers who executed the search
warrants to even the court reporters who “took notes
from the begining [sic] to the end of both hearings
participating and never intervening or reporting the fraud
being perpetrated on the court through the miscarriage of
justice and abuse of power, ” id. at 13-was
thereby committing some unspecified crime and/or depriving
plaintiff of his various constitutional rights.
filed this action on November 21, 2017, seeking monetary
relief and a declaratory judgment stating that his
constitutional rights have been violated. Id. at 68.
All defendants are sued solely in their individual
capacities. Id. at 6-7.
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court must review a
prisoner's civil complaint against a governmental entity
or governmental actors and “identify cognizable claims
or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if
the complaint-(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state
a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks
monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such
relief.” In reviewing a pro se complaint, the
Court must assume the truth of the allegations, and interpret
them liberally to raise the strongest arguments they suggest.
Ultimately, however, a complaint must allege enough facts-as
distinct from legal ...