United States District Court, D. Connecticut
STEPHEN A. MILLER, Plaintiff,
CHARLES STALLWORTH, ET AL., Defendants.
ORDER ISSUING PERMANENT INJUNCTION
CHARLES S. HAIGHT, JR. SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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.”
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. I accepted her RR in an Order, [Doc. 13],
and entered judgment thereon.
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
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
(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;
(iv) he submits a copy of the Court's order granting him
permission to file papers with the papers he has ...