United States District Court, D. Connecticut
JESSICAVERNER MORAN, Est of, JOHN VERNER MORAN, Exc., Plaintiffs,
TOWN OF CHESHIRE et al., Defendants.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT BE
Jeffrey Alker Meyer United States District Judge
have filed this lawsuit pro se alleging misconduct
in connection with a foreclosure and ejectment from a family
home. Because it does not appear that the complaints allege
facts that give rise to plausible grounds for federal
jurisdiction or state plausible grounds for relief, the Court
is considering whether to dismiss the complaint pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
Before the Court dismisses this action, however, the Court
will describe its concerns and permit plaintiffs an
opportunity to file a response and/or an amended complaint to
show why this action should not be dismissed.
are two documents that have been filed and labeled as
“complaints” in this action. Docs. #1 and #21.
The first complaint (Doc. #1) is composed of about 131 pages,
which includes a series of attachments. The second complaint
(Doc. #21) is just 5 pages and appears to be duplicative of
parts of the first complaint.
complaints name two putative plaintiffs: “Jessica
Verner Moran/Est. of” and “John Verner
Moran/Exc.” All of the papers filed by plaintiffs in
this case appear to be signed by John Verner Moran, and the
papers reflect that Jessica Verner Moran has passed away.
Under Connecticut law, “[a]n estate is not a legal
entity. It is neither a natural nor artificial person, but is
merely a name to indicate the sum total of the assets and
liabilities of the decedent or incompetent. Not having a
legal existence, it can neither sue nor be sued.”
Rock v. Univ. of Connecticut, 323 Conn. 26, 32
(2016). Accordingly, there appears to be no basis for this
lawsuit to proceed in the name of Jessica Verner Moran or the
Estate of Jessica Verner Moran, and I will henceforth refer
to the operative plaintiff in this case as John Verner Moran.
complaints confusingly names the following sets of paired
defendants: “Town of Cheshire, Connectciut [sic] (Town
Manager Sean Kimball[)], ” “State of Connecticut
(Attorney General William Tong), ” and “Virgo
Municipal Finance Fund Inc. L.P. (Atty. Joshua Gilman),
” and “Ricci Construction Group Inc. (Atty. Kevin
J. Hecht).” Doc. #1 at 1; Doc. #21. It is not clear if
Moran intends to proceed against the entities named, the
persons named, or both.
gravamen of the complaints appears to be that defendants
conspired to foreclose on Moran’s family home at 257
Fenn Road in Cheshire, Connecticut, before unlawfully
ejecting him from the house in violation of numerous federal
and state laws. See Doc. #1-1; Doc. #21. Moran
appears to allege that Virgo Finance initiated the
foreclosure on his home while acting as the Town of
Cheshire’s collection agent in recovering tax payments.
See Doc. #1-1 at 2. Moran includes with his
complaint a copy of a Connecticut Superior Court docket sheet
reflecting foreclosure proceedings on the property,
see Doc. #1-19 at 7-10; see also Virgo Mun. Fin.
Fund, LP v. Moran, NNH-CV13-6041879-S (Conn. Super.
2013), as well as a Superior Court order granting an
application to eject Moran from the property, see
Doc. #1-5 at 2. And indeed, the Superior Court’s own
records reflect that a judgment of foreclosure by sale was
entered on May 30, 2017, with an execution of ejectment
issued on January 19, 2018. See Virgo Mun. Fin. Fund, LP
v. Moran, NNH-CV13-6041879-S, Doc. ##121.00, 159.00
(Conn. Super. 2013).
second complaint summarizes the “charges” as
Failure to provide Plaintiff(s) a Fair Due Process Eviction /
Auction/Foreclosure via an illegal Ejectment, ignoring
evidence and fabricating illegal court documents. 2.
Conspired to false and maliciously commit an illegal
Ejectment upon the person of John Verner Moran. 3. Engaged in
deceitful conduct. 4. Intentionally inflicted emotional
distress, resulting in P.T.S.D. 5. Acted negligently in
ignoring Jessica Verner Moran’s Last Will and
Testament. 6. Acted negligently in ignoring the Federal
Homestead Law / CT Code: 52/352. 7. Ill[eg]al seizure of the
contents of the Sovereign Verner-Moran Homestead (Est, 1740)
8. Acted negligently in ignoring the “sovereign”
status of the Verner-Moran Homestead (Est. 1740).
Doc. #21 at 2 (underlining omitted).
courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. A complaint filed
in federal court must allege facts that give rise to
plausible grounds to conclude that the court has federal
jurisdiction. See Lapaglia v. Transamerica Cas. Ins.
Co., 155 F.Supp. 3d 153, 155 (D. Conn. 2016). “If
the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter
jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”
a complaint must contain “a short and plain statement
of the claim showing that the party is entitled to
relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). It is well established
that “pro se complaints must be construed
liberally and interpreted to raise the strongest arguments
that they suggest.” Sykes v. Bank of Am., 723
F.3d 399, 403 (2d Cir. 2013); see also Tracy v.
Freshwater, 623 F.3d 90, 101-02 (2d Cir. 2010)
(discussing special rules of solicitude for pro se
litigants). Although the Court must accept as true all
factual matters alleged in a complaint, a complaint may not
survive unless its factual recitations state a claim to
relief that is at least plausible on its face. See,
e.g., Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009); Kim v. Kimm, 884 F.3d 98, 103 (2d Cir.
2018). A complaint that fails to allege plausible grounds for
relief may be subject to dismissal by the Court on its own
initiative pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).