United States District Court, D. Connecticut
DISMISSAL AND LEAVE-TO-FILE INJUNCTION
Michael P. Shea, U.S.D.J.
Skipp's claims lack merit and are hereby DISMISSED.
September 28, 2018, in 17cv1974, Judge Bolden entered the
following permanent injunction against Ms. Skipp:
Plaintiff, Susan Skipp, is hereby permanently enjoined, in
the District of Connecticut, from serving upon any person,
natural or legal, or any other entity, any document, motion,
affidavit, declaration, or other paper purporting a loss,
abrogation, or interruption of her federal rights in
connection with state-court judgments rendered on or before
the date of this Order. If Ms. Skipp seeks to pursue her
rights in any other federal district or in state court, she
is ordered to attach this Order to any such filing. See Doe
v. Republic of Poland, 531 Fed.Appx. 113, 115 (2d Cir. 2013).
Ms. Skipp also is hereby notified and advised that failure to
honor the terms of this Order shall subject her to penalties
available for contempt of this court, including but not
limited to fine, imprisonment, or both. This Order is entered
with the following limitations. Nothing in this Order shall
be construed as having any effect on Ms. Skipp's ability
to defend herself in any criminal action brought against her.
Nothing in this Order shall be construed as denying Ms. Skipp
access to the courts through filing of a petition for a writ
of habeas corpus or other extraordinary writ.
17cv1974 (ECF No. 39).
reviewed Ms. Skipp's response (ECF No. 5) to my order of
May 7, 2019 (ECF No. 4) directing her, among other things, to
show cause why she should not be held in contempt for
violating Judge Bolden's order by filing the
“petition for writ of habeas corpus” in this
action, and why I should not impose an additional injunction
barring her from filing a habeas petition or any other type
of action attempting to challenge previous state court
judgments allegedly depriving her of her children. I find
that her response fails to show that her “petition for
writ of habeas corpus” (ECF No. 1) is anything other
than another attempt to challenge the same state court
judgments and proceedings relating to custody of her children
that she has challenged many times previously in this Court
and about which she was prohibited from making further
filings by Judge Bolden's order.
particular, I make the following findings:
1. Ms. Skipp has filed at least 8 other cases in this Court
arising directly or indirectly out of state court judgments
involving the custody of her children. See Skipp et al. v.
Connecticut Judicial Branch et al. (14-cv-00141-JAM), Skipp
et al. v. Connecticut et al. (16-cv-01194-MPS), Skipp et al.
v. Paxton et al. (16-cv-01619-JAM), Skipp et al. v. Brigham
et al. (17-cv-01224-MPS), Skipp et al. v. Brigham et al.
(17-cv-01569-MPS), Skipp et al. v. Tittle et al.
(17-cv-01761-MPS), Skipp et al. v. Murphy et al.
(17-cv-1974-VAB), Skipp v. Tittle et al. (18-cv-447-VAB).
None have been successful. See also Skipp v. Brigham,
17cv1224, ECF No. 31 at 15-16 (describing Skipp's
2. Ms. Skipp's motivation for pursuing this lawsuit is
not in good faith, but for purposes of harassment; given the
failure of her previous lawsuits on the same subject matter,
she has no objective good faith expectation of prevailing.
Her suit is just another attempt to challenge the same state
court judgments and proceedings relating to custody of her
children that she has challenged many times previously in
this Court and about which she was prohibited from making
further filings by Judge Bolden's order.
3. Ms. Skipp is not represented by counsel in this case, but
is pro se.
4. Ms. Skipp's pattern of vexatious and meritless
litigation, which has named state court officials, state
judges, attorneys, and federal judges with whom she disagrees
as defendants (see, e.g., 17-cv-01569), has caused needless
expense for the parties and has posed an unnecessary burden
on this Court.
5. Nothing less than an additional permanent filing
injunction of broader scope would be adequate to protect the
courts and other parties. Even though I have previously
warned Ms. Skipp that I would impose a leave-to-file
injunction (17-cv-01224, ECF No. 31), and Judge Bolden did
impose one as described above (17cv1974, ECF No. 39), Ms.
Skipp has continued to file baseless actions concerning the
same state court judgments in an attempt to sidestep that
See Safir v. U.S. Lines, Inc., 792 F.2d 19, 24 (2d
Cir. 1986) (indicating that a district court should consider
the above factors in deciding whether to impose a
leave-to-file injunction). Because four of the five relevant
factors favor imposing the injunction, I conclude that a
permanent filing injunction of broader scope is appropriate.
I now enter the following order of permanent injunction,
which shall be in addition to Judge Bolden's order of
September 28, 2018:
Skipp is permanently enjoined, in the District of
Connecticut, from filing in this Court or serving upon any
person, natural or legal, or any other entity, any document,
motion, affidavit, declaration, or other paper alleging or
purporting a loss, abrogation, or interruption of her federal
rights in connection with state-court judgments rendered on
or before September 28, 2018, without obtaining leave of this
Court. The injunction set forth in the previous sentence
includes, but is not limited to, a prohibition against filing
any pleading, motion, or other paper in this district, no
matter whether styled as a writ of habeas corpus or
otherwise, that challenges state-court judgments rendered on
or before September 28, 2018 relating to any custody issues
concerning her ...