United States District Court, D. Connecticut
ANTHONY G. VILLANO, et al. Plaintiffs,
JEFF MILLER, et al. Defendants.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
A. DOOLEY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Villano, acting pro se, filed a Complaint in this
Court in which he purports to bring claims on behalf of
himself, what appear to be three other individuals, and what
appear to be four legal entities. He names twenty-seven
defendants. For the reasons set forth in this order, the
Court sua sponte dismisses this action without leave
Mr. Villano's fourth complaint filed in this Court in
less than nine months, two of which remain pending. On
January 18, 2019, Mr. Villano filed his first action,
Villano v. Woodgreen Shelton, No. 3:19-cv-00097
[hereinafter Villano I], which named seven
defendants, some of which were police departments or law
enforcement officers. The non-law enforcement defendants,
including Jeff Miller who is named as a defendant in this
action, were dismissed from the case after Mr. Villano failed
to effectuate service on them. Id., ECF No. 42. The
remaining law enforcement defendants have moved to dismiss
all claims against them. Id., ECF Nos. 24, 27. Mr.
Villano has not responded to the motions to dismiss, and his
time to do so has passed.
on February 27, 2019, Mr. Villano filed Villano &
Gallo International Trust v. Woodgreen Shelton LLC, No.
19-cv-00287 [hereinafter Villano II], in which he
sought to bring suit on behalf of two legal entities against
over fifty defendants, some of which are named defendants to
this action. After the filing of that action, Mr. Villano was
admonished of the need to retain counsel; id., ECF
No. 10; because “an artificial entity cannot proceed
pro se and any person who represents an artificial
entity must ‘be an attorney licensed to practice law
before our courts,' which Mr. Villano is not”;
id., ECF No. 13 (quoting Jones v. Niagara
Frontier Transp. Auth., 722 F.2d 20, 22 (2d Cir. 1983)).
Mr. Villano did not thereafter retain counsel, and the action
was dismissed sua sponte. Villano II, ECF
on May 8, 2019, Mr. Villano filed a third action, Villano
v. State of Connecticut Judicial Department, No.,
3:19-cv-00695 [hereinafter Villano III], in which he
alleges that his constitutional rights are being violated in
his ongoing state criminal prosecutions. The defendants in
that case have moved to dismiss all claims on a variety of
bases. Id., ECF No. 11. Mr. Villano has not replied
to the motion to dismiss, and his time to do so has passed.
on September 5, 2019, Mr. Villano filed the instant action on
behalf of himself and six other plaintiffs against
twenty-seven defendants, some of whom he has previously sued
or attempted to sue in federal court. Villano v.
Miller, No. 19-cv-01376, ECF No. 1 (D. Conn. Sept. 5,
2019) [hereinafter Villano IV].
Complaint is facially defective in several respects. First
and foremost, the other individual plaintiffs named in this
Complaint did not sign the Complaint or otherwise appear on
their own behalf. Given the content of the entire submission,
it is not clear that these individuals are even aware that
Mr. Villano purports to represent them and bring claims on
their behalf in this action. But whether they are aware or
not, Mr. Villano does not have legal standing to assert
claims for anyone other than himself. Am. Psychiatric
Ass'n v. Anthem Health Plans, Inc., 821 F.3d 352,
358 (2d Cir. 2016) (“a plaintiff may ordinarily assert
only his own legal rights, not those of third
parties”). Nor is Mr. Villano, who is not an
attorney, permitted to practice law without a license.
Indeed, practicing law without a license in the State of
Connecticut is a felony. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 51-88(b)(1).
Villano also names four legal entities as plaintiffs. As
discussed above, Mr. Villano has attempted on two prior
occasions to bring claims on behalf of legal entities,
including two of the entities named as plaintiffs in the
instant Complaint. Villano I, ECF No. 34;
Villano II, ECF No. 1. In both instances, the Court
informed Mr. Villano that an artificial entity cannot proceed
pro se and any person who represents an artificial
entity must “be an attorney licensed to practice law
before our courts.” Jones, 722 F.2d at 22;
see also Villano I, ECF No. 37 at 4; Villano
II, ECF No. 13. Nevertheless, Mr. Villano has yet again
attempted to file a complaint on behalf of legal entities
without attorney representation. This he cannot do.
these reasons, the Complaint is dismissed to the extent it
purports to assert claims on behalf of individuals or
entities other than Mr. Villano.
Complaint is also, sua sponte, dismissed to the
extent it purports to bring claims by Mr. Villano. The
“principal function” of the pleading requirements
embodied in Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
“is to give the adverse party fair notice of the claim
asserted so as to enable him to answer and prepare for
trial.” Salahuddin v. Cuomo, 861 F.2d 40, 42
(2d Cir. 1988); see also Wynder v. McMahon, 360 F.3d
73, 79 (2d Cir. 2004) (“The key to Rule 8(a)'s
requirements is whether adequate notice is given.”).
“[F]air notice [is] that which will enable the adverse
party to answer and prepare for trial, allow the application
of res judicata, and identify the nature of the case so that
it may be assigned the proper form of trial.”
Wynder, 360 F.3d at 79. (internal quotation
marks omitted). Rule 8 requires a plaintiff to
“disclose sufficient information to permit the
defendant ‘to have a fair understanding of what the
plaintiff is complaining about and to know
whether there is a legal basis for
recovery.'” Kittay v.
Kornstein, 230 F.3d 531, 541 (2d Cir. 2000) (emphasis
added) (quoting Ricciuti v. New York City Transit
Auth., 941 F.2d 119, 123 (2d Cir. 1991)).
complaint does not comply with Rule 8's requirements,
“the court has the power, on its own initiative . . .
to dismiss the complaint.” See Salahuddin, 861
F.2d at 42. “Dismissal [however] is usually reserved
for those cases in which the complaint is so confused,
ambiguous, vague, or otherwise unintelligible that its true
substance, if any, is well disguised.” Id.
although Mr. Villano used the form complaint for this
District, the Complaint still fails to provide fair notice.
With respect to the Court's “Jurisdiction, ”
where he is instructed to “list statute(s), ” Mr.
Villano asserts: “CT Invitation as Plaintiffs I-R-S
I-C-E F-B-I S-S-A F-D-I-C.” (Villano IV, ECF
No. 1 at 2.) And although Mr. Villano identifies his claim to
be “Violations of my rights under I, II, IV, V, VI