Messiah v. Pafumi et al

Filing 18

ORDER denying 4 Motion To Allow Unusual Filing And Order To Connecticut and New Mexico To Allow Plaintiff His Legal Papers And Books And A Pen To Sign Legal Documents And Order Connecticut To Sign Prisoner Authorization; and finding that Plaintiff has failed to establish that he qualifies to proceed in forma pauperis and that his in forma pauperis application was granted in error. See attached Order. Signed by Judge Vanessa L. Bryant on 8/30/13. (Rock, K.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

YASHUA MESSIAH
A/K/A ROBIN ZAKIA ELLIOTT,
Plaintiff,
v.

CASE NO. 3:12-cv-1582(VLB)

MICHAEL PAFUMI, et al.,
Defendants.

RULING AND ORDER
Plaintiff, Yashua Messiah a/k/a Robin Zakia Elliott, is currently incarcerated
at the Southern New Mexico Correctional Facility in Las Cruces, New Mexico. He
has filed a civil rights action against numerous employees of the Connecticut
Department of Correction. The court addresses the plaintiff’s application to
proceed in forma pauperis and motion for injunctive relief.
I.

Motion to Allow Unusual Filing and Order [Doc No. 4]
The plaintiff states prison officials in Connecticut transferred him to a

prison in New Mexico in October 2012. He arrived at Southern New Mexico
Correctional Institution on October 24, 2012. He claims that he does not have
access to all of his legal materials and books. He also indicates that neither the
New Mexico prison officials, nor Connecticut prison officials will sign his inmate
account or produce a six month ledger statement from his account. New Mexico
prison officials refuse to make the necessary copies of the complaint to be sent
to the court for service on the defendants and will not permit him to use a pen.
Many of the issues referred to by the plaintiff have become moot. See
Mawhinney v. Henderson, 542 F.2d 1, 2 (2d Cir. 1976). See also Martin-Trigona v.

Shiff, 702 F.2d 380, 386 (2d Cir. 1983) (“The hallmark of a moot case or
controversy is that the relief sought can no longer be given or is no longer
needed”). The court has received the plaintiff’s Prison Authorization Form, his
Certified Prison Account Statement and Ledger Sheet showing six months of
account activity. The court does not require that motions or other documents to
be filed in pen. Thus, the plaintiff may use a pencil to draft documents to be filed
in this case. Additionally, the plaintiff is not required to submit copies of his
complaint for service. The Clerk will take care of making the necessary copies for
service of the complaint on the defendants.
The plaintiff mentions witness declarations that he was unable to attach to
his complaint before filing it due to his transfer from the Connecticut Department
of Correction to New Mexico. The plaintiff is not required to file declarations in
support of his complaint. Any affidavits or declarations may be submitted in
support of or in opposition to any motion for summary judgment that might be
filed in the future.
The plaintiff claims that fourteen boxes of legal documents were
transferred with him to New Mexico. Prison officials in New Mexico informed the
plaintiff that he could not access these boxes until he had been classified and
sent to his “institution of placement which could take from 30 to 90 days.” Mot.
at 2.
The court must have in personam over an individual before it can validly
enter an injunction against him or her. See Doctor’s Assocs., Inc. v. Reinert &
Duree, P.C., 191 F.3d 297, 302 (2d Cir. 1999); 11A Charles A. Wright, Arthur R.
Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2956, at 335 (2d ed.

2001) (“A court ordinarily does not have power to issue an order against a person
who is not a party and over whom it has not acquired in personam jurisdiction.”);
Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d) (providing, in pertinent part, that “[e]very order granting an
injunction ... is binding only upon the parties to the action ...”). None of the
defendants in this action are from the New Mexico Department of Correction.
Because the court does not have in personam jurisdiction over New Mexico
Department of Correction prison officials, it cannot enjoin their actions.
Furthermore, it is apparent that the plaintiff likely has access to his boxes of
documents given that more than nine months have passed since his transfer to
New Mexico. For all of the reasons above, the motion for injunctive relief is
denied.
II.

Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis [Doc. No. 1]
Plaintiff discloses in his application to proceed in forma pauperis that he

received $5,500.00 within the last twelve months prior to filing this action. (See
Doc. No. 1.) In addition, his prison account statement reflects deposits in various
amounts, including a deposit of $350.00 in June 2012 and a deposit of $240.00 in
September 2012. (See Doc. No. 9.)
In light of this information, the court finds that Plaintiff has failed to
establish that he qualifies to proceed in forma pauperis and that his in forma
pauperis application was granted in error. The court will revoke Plaintiff’s in
forma pauperis status if Plaintiff has not filed, within thirty (30) days of the date of
this order, an affidavit or declaration signed under oath and under penalty of
perjury, stating facts establishing that he lacked sufficient funds to pay the fee
required to file this action. Such affidavit or declaration should detail Plaintiff’s

receipt and disposition of the funds referenced above and include Plaintiff’s
inmate account statements beginning six (6) months prior to the date this action
was commenced to and including the month the declaration is signed.
Conclusion
The Motion for Order [Doc. No. 4] is DENIED. Failure to file the declaration
or affidavit as described above within thirty (30) days of the date of this order will
result in the court’s revocation of the order granting the application to proceed in
forma pauperis.
SO ORDERED at Hartford, Connecticut this __30th_ day of August,
2013.

_______________/s/____________________
VANESSA L. BRYANT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE