Miller v. Stallworth

          ORDER ISSUING PERMANENT INJUNCTION

          CHARLES S. HAIGHT, JR. SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Pro se Plaintiff Miller has filed two additional motions in this action. The first, [Doc. 17], filed on June 20, 2019, is captioned “Motion to Correct Court's Plain Errors, Hypocrisy, & Corruption Throughout Connecticut.” The second, [Doc. 20], filed on July 8, 2019, is captioned “Motion to Order the Arrest of Defendants for Their Criminal Acts of False Complaints.”

         Mr. Miller either does not understand or chooses to disregard prior orders of the Court that preclude these filings. As Judge Merriam noted in her Recommended Ruling ("RR"), [Doc. 9 (the "RR") at 10], Plaintiff's complaint in this case is “wholly duplicative” of the prior cases before Judge Meyer, Miller v. Stallworth, No. 3:17-CV-1711-JAM (D. Conn. 2018), and Judge Shea, Miller v. Stallworth, No. 3:18-CV-1753-MPS (D. Conn. 2018). Judge Meyer and Judge Shea dismissed those cases for the reasons stated in their orders and judgments. Neither dismissal was appealed by Plaintiff. Judge Merriam correctly concluded that Judge Shea's ruling in Miller, No. 3:18-CV-1753- MPS, barred the present action on the basis of res judicata. See RR at 8.^[1] I accepted her RR in an Order, [Doc. 13], and entered judgment thereon.

         Based upon Mr. Miller's past history as a self-represented plaintiff in this Court, Judge Merriam coupled her recommendation that the complaint in this action be dismissed with a recommendation that Mr. Miller be permanently enjoined from future filings unless certain conditions were met. I chose not to enter an injunction at that time. Instead, Mr. Miller was encouraged to consider the prior rulings in these cases and “refrain from any further filings in this Court asserting these claims against these Defendants which, for the reasons stated, would if made clearly cross the line into impermissibly unenforceable claims.” Doc. 13 at 7. Judge Merriam's recommended injunction was “denied for the present, without prejudice to reconsideration by this Court as the result of changing circumstances.” Id. Plaintiff's two most recent filings present changed circumstances which demonstrate the need for an injunction.^[2]

         For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's two pending motions, [Docs. 17, 20], are denied as MOOT, and Plaintiff is PERMANENTLY ENJOINED from:

(1) bringing any future case as a self-represented plaintiff in the District of Connecticut without the prior permission of the District Judge to whom the case would be assigned if he files; and

(2) filing any papers in connection with any case previously filed or currently pending in the District of Connecticut unless either:

(a) such submission is a required response to a filing submitted by his adversary, or,

(b) prior to filing:

(i) he files a one-page written application to the Court for permission to file papers in that case;

(ii) in that one-page written application, he explains why he seeks permission to file such papers;

(iii) the Court grants his application in a written order; and

(iv) he submits a copy of the Court's order granting him permission to file papers with the papers he has ...