United States District Court, D. Connecticut
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER
C. HALL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
plaintiff, Deshawn Tyson (“Tyson”), is confined
at MacDougall-Walker Correctional Institution. He has filed a
pro se civil rights action pursuant to section 1983
of title 42 of the United States Code against New Haven
Superior Court Judge Patrick J. Clifford (“Judge
Clifford”) and Connecticut State's Attorney John P.
Doyle, Jr. (“Attorney Doyle”). For the reasons
set forth below, the Complaint is dismissed.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
to section 1915A(b) of title 28 of the United States Code,
the court must review prisoner civil complaints against
governmental actors and “dismiss . . . any portion of
[a] complaint [that] is frivolous, malicious, or fails to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted, ” or
that “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is
immune from such relief.” Id. This standard of
review “appl[ies] to all civil complaints brought by
prisoners against governmental officials or entities
regardless of whether the prisoner has paid [a] filing
fee.” Shakur v. Selsky, 391 F.3d 106, 112 (2d
Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that a
complaint contain “a short and plain statement of the
claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). Although detailed allegations are not
required, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual
matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face. A claim has facial plausibility when
the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to
draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable
for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotation
marks and citations omitted). A complaint that includes only
“‘labels and conclusions,' ‘a formulaic
recitation of the elements of a cause of action' or
‘naked assertion[s]' devoid of ‘further
factual enhancement, '” does not meet the facial
plausibility standard. Id. (quoting Bell Atl.
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 557 (2007)).
Although courts still have an obligation to interpret
“a pro se complaint liberally, ” the
Complaint must still include sufficient factual allegations
to meet the standard of facial plausibility. See Harris
v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir. 2009) (citations
states that he has been “wrong[ly] incarcerated”
in a facility within the State of Connecticut Department of
Correction since March 10, 2016. See Compl. (Doc.
No. 1) at 22. The State of Connecticut Judicial Branch
website reflects that New Haven police officers arrested
Tyson on March 10, 2016, and that the State of Connecticut
has charged him in a criminal case filed in the Connecticut
Superior Court for the Judicial District of New Haven with
one count of sexual assault in the first degree, in violation
of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-70(a)(1), and one count of
unlawful restraint in the first degree, in violation of Conn.
Gen. Stat. § 53a-95. See State v. Tyson, No.
NNH-CR16-0165313-T (Conn. Super. Ct. Mar. 10,
2016). The case detail indicates that Tyson is
represented by counsel and that a jury trial is scheduled for
December 16, 2020. See id.
alleges that, on or about July 26, 2018, in the Connecticut
Superior Court for the Judicial District of New Haven, Judge
Clifford stated on the record that he had instructed Attorney
Doyle to ignore or disregard any motions, memoranda, or
affidavits filed by Tyson. See Compl. at 5 ¶ 1,
22. Judge Clifford has ruled against Tyson even when Attorney
Doyle refused to oppose Tyson's motions. See id.
about August 22, 2018, Judge Clifford stated on the record
that he had instructed Attorney Doyle to remain silent during
a pretrial hearing and that Attorney Doyle agreed to do so.
See id. at 5 ¶ 2. On or about September 12,
2018, Judge Clifford stated on the record that he had
instructed Attorney Doyle to ignore or disregard Tyson's
instrument/grievance” document. See Id. at 5
¶ 3. On that same date, Judge Clifford informed Tyson
that he would not consider any motions that Tyson might file.
See id. at 5 ¶ 4. Tyson generally asserts that
Judge Clifford and Attorney Doyle have misapplied statutes
and laws and have failed to provide him with
“Discovery/Brady material.” Id. at 6
¶ 6, 17-18.
point during the criminal proceeding, Judge Clifford issued
an order that Tyson could represent himself. See id.
at 22. Judge Clifford subsequently attempted to appoint an
attorney to represent Tyson even though the attorney had made
threats against Tyson in the past. See id.
alleges that the defendants violated his rights under the
First, Fifth, Eighth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments as well
as under sections 241 and 242 of title 18 of the United
States Code. See id. at 17-18. Tyson seeks punitive,
compensatory, nominal, and exemplary damages, as well as
injunctive and declaratory relief. See Id. at 6-7.
preliminary matter, the court notes that Tyson includes the
following additional allegations in the Complaint. The
“State of CT has declared me/plaintiff sovereign [f]rom
itself, as establish[ed] by law, because I/plaintiff had/has
no residency with the state and therefore plaintiff is not
only a private man as opposed to a corporate fiction.”
See id. at 6 ¶ 7. Tyson asserts that he cannot
be “named in any statutes” and has “a
Reservation of Rights which was made known to all
defendants.” See id. at 6 ¶¶ 8-10.
Tyson contends that, throughout his criminal case,
“defendants [have] refuse[d] to adhere to the Supremacy
Clause of the United States Supreme Court rulings.”
See id. at 6 ¶ 5. Tyson signs the Complaint as:
“Secured Party, Sui Juris, one of the sovereign people,
a private man on the land, non-combatant, an American by
birth, and child of the living God, Grantor, Secured
Party/Creditor and principal of which ‘Rights'
existed long antecedent to the Organization of the State and
Trustee.” Id. at 33. Attached to the Complaint
is a document titled “Memorandum of Law with points and
Authorities on ‘sovereignty' of the people In
Relationship to ‘Government' of the several Compact
De-facto State and the Federal Government.”
Id. at 25-32.
language and the title of the attachment to the Complaint
suggest that Tyson considers himself a “sovereign
citizen.” In United States v. Ulloa, 511
Fed.Appx. 105 (2d Cir. 2013), the Second Circuit described,
“sovereign citizens, ” as “a loosely
affiliated group who believe that the state and federal
governments lack ...