Skipp v. Murphy

          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 ...