United States District Court, D. Connecticut
RULING ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND MOTION FOR
CLARIFICATION
VICTOR
A. BOLDEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
On
November 1, 2017, Susan Skipp, pro se, filed this
lawsuit. Compl., ECF No. 2. The Complaint asserted various
claims against judges, attorneys, state agencies, and
government employees in Connecticut and Texas. Id.
On
September 28, 2018, the Court adopted in part Judge William
Garfinkel's Report and Recommendation, dismissed the case
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), and enjoined Ms. Skipp
from filing similar actions in the District of Connecticut.
Order Dismissing Case and Enjoining Pl. from Filing Similar
Cases in D. Conn. (“Order”), ECF No. 39.
On
October 17, 2018, Ms. Skipp moved to set aside that Order,
Pl. Mot. to Reconsider and Set Aside J. (“Pl.
Mot.”), ECF No. 40.
On
April 3, 2019, Ms. Skipp also moved for clarification on
whether Defendants were served. Pl. Mot. for Clarification,
ECF No. 46.
For the
reasons below, the Court DENIES the motion
to reconsider, ECF No. 40, and DENIES the
motion for clarification, ECF No. 46, as moot.
I.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A.
Factual Background[1]
Ms.
Skipp claims that Defendants, including more than a dozen
judges, numerous attorneys, state agencies, and government
employees, deprived her and her children of meaningful access
to the family courts of two states and a life together.
Compl. ¶¶ 6, et seq.; Pl. Mot. ¶ 21
(“The Connecticut Family Court has no jurisdiction post
judgment of a dissolution. Once a dissolution of marriage
happens, two new families are created and the state has no
place to involve itself in the family, except in cases of
abuse and neglect . . . “); id. at ¶ 21
(“That order in CT Family Court . . . violated the
United States Constitution as well as the Connecticut
Constitution “Courts shall be open to all without sale
or delay.”).
Ms.
Skipp alleges that Defendants discriminated against her
actual or perceived disabilities in violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act. Compl. ¶ 22, et
seq. (“Because Defendants regarded Ms. Skipp as
having, ‘alienation' and unknown mental health
issues, the court was biased against her . . . . As a result,
Plaintiffs could not fully and equally participate in court
proceedings.”); Pl. Mot. ¶¶ 15, 34, et
seq.
Ms.
Skipp further claims that her interactions with Defendants
caused her to suffer post-traumatic stress disorder. Compl.
¶ 1 (“[T]he State of Connecticut et al . . . .
gave the plaintiff mother a disability she did not have prior
to Defendants['] unlawful and illegal acts.”);
id. ¶ 180 (“Because the Defendants
exploited Plaintiffs' disabilities, [they] rendered Ms.
Skipp with PTSD so severe that she does not trust them, has
lost faith in the legal system. . . .”).
B.
Procedural Background
On
November 1, 2017, Susan Skipp, pro se, filed this
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York. Compl. Ms. Skipp simultaneously moved
to proceed in forma pauperis. Request to Proceed
in forma pauperis, ECF No. 1.
On
November 14, 2017, the case was transferred to the District
of Connecticut. Transfer Order, ECF No. 5. On December 6,
2017, the case was reassigned to this Court. Order of
Transfer, ECF No. 15. The Court then referred the in
forma ...