Judd v. Secretary of State of Connecticut et al
Ruling and ORDER denying 40 Motion for Default Judgment; ; granting 28 Motion for Order; Signed by Judge Mark R. Kravitz on 12/19/2011. (Falcone, K.) Modified on 12/19/2011 to correct motions erroneously terminated(Falcone, K.).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
KEITH RUSSELL JUDD,
SECRETARY OF STATE OF
CONNECTICUT, STATE OF
No. 3:11cv879 (MRK)
RULING AND ORDER
Plaintiff Keith Russell Judd, an inmate confined at the Federal Correctional Complex in
Texarkana, TX, filed suit against the State of Connecticut and the Connecticut Secretary of State
(collectively "Defendants") alleging violations of the National Voter Registration Act, 42 U.S.C.
§ 1733gg et seq., the Help America Vote Act, 42, U.S.C. § 15482 et seq., the Voting Rights Act,
42 U.S.C. § 1973 et seq., and the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On May 31, 2011, Mr. Judd filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis [doc.
# 2], which the Court granted in its Order of June 8, 2011 [doc. # 4]. Now pending before the
Court is Defendants' Motion to Revoke IFP Status Order [doc. # 28]. Also pending are Mr.
Judd's Motion for Preliminary Injunction [doc. # 24]; Mr. Judd's Motion for Class Action
Certification [doc. # 27]; Mr. Judd's Motion for Preliminary Injunction for Access to Law
Library Books and Resources [doc. # 31]; and Mr. Judd's Motion for Default Judgment [doc.
As Mr. Judd is an inmate at a federal correctional facility and is therefore required to
comply with the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA"), 28 U.S.C. § 1915, and as Mr. Judd
has filed numerous frivolous lawsuits, the Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion to Revoke IFP
Status Order [doc. # 28] and issues additional corollary orders below.
The PLRA prohibits prisoners from repeatedly filing frivolous or malicious complaints:
In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or appeal a judgment in a civil
action [in forma pauperis] . . . if a prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions,
while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a
court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous,
malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the
prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Mr. Judd has had well over three prior suits or appeals dismissed as
frivolous or for failure to state a claim—in fact, Mr. Judd has had well over three prior suits or
appeals dismissed on the basis that he violated the PLRA's "three strikes" rule. See, e.g., Judd v.
Sec'y of S.D., No. 11-4080-KES, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77854 (D.S.D. July 18, 2011) (citing
cases); Judd v. Furgeson, 239 F. Supp. 2d 442, 443 (D.N.J. 2002) ("In this instance, the 'three
strikes' rule is applied against a plaintiff who has filed over 200 civil actions in the federal courts
nationwide, many of which have been dismissed as frivolous . . . ."). As the allegations in Mr.
Judd's complaint do not demonstrate that he is "under imminent danger of serious physical
injury," the PLRA bars him from proceeding further with this lawsuit in forma pauperis.
This simple analysis is bolstered by the fact that courts across the nation, confronted with
similar claims filed by Mr. Judd, have refused to allow him to proceed in forma pauperis—and
have often rejected his claims sua sponte. Mr. Judd has been barred from submitting petitions of
certiorari by the Supreme Court of the United States for abusing its certiorari and extraordinary
writ processes, see Judd v. U.S. Dist. Court for W.D. Tex., 528 U.S. 5 (1999), and he has been
barred from filing complaints in forma pauperis for similar reasons in the Third, Fifth, and D.C.
Circuits and in the District of Massacusetts. See, e.g., Judd v. United States Attorney General,
No. 10 Civ. 382, 2010 WL 1374034 (D. Me. Apr. 12, 2011).
The Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion to Revoke IFP Status Order [doc. # 28]. The
Court's Order of June 8, 2011 [doc. # 4] is therefore VACATED. Mr. Judd has until January 16,
2012 to submit the filing fee and a notice to this Court that he has paid the fee. If the filing fee is
not paid and the notice not submitted by that date, the Court will dismiss the case without
prejudice on January 17, 2012.
Defendants have 30 days after the submission of the filing fee and notice to file an
answer to Mr. Judd's complaint and to file responses to Mr. Judd's Motion for Preliminary
Injunction [doc. # 24], Mr. Judd's Motion for Class Action Certification [doc. # 27], and Mr.
Judd's Motion for Preliminary Injunction for Access to Law Library Books and Resources [doc.
# 31]. Mr. Judd's Motion for Default Judgment [doc. # 40]—which is based primarily on the fact
that the Defendants have yet to file an answer—is DENIED without prejudice to renewal.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated at New Haven, Connecticut: December 19, 2011.
Mark R. Kravitz
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?