Billie v. Aurigremma et al

Filing 31

ORDER; Plaintiff's Motion 22 for Reconsideration re 14 Motion for a TRO is DENIED; Plaintiff's Affidavit, construed as a motion 30 for a TRO is DENIED. Signed by Judge Janet Bond Arterton on 3/19/2014. (Morril, Gregory)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
PETURA BILLIE,
Plaintiff,

Civil No. 3:13-cv-1432 (JBA)

v.
March 19, 2014
JUDGE AURIGREMMA, et al.,
Defendants.
RULING ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR
RECONSIDERATION AND FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
On December 5, 2013, the Court denied [Doc. # 14] Plaintiff Petura Bille’s motion
for a temporary restraining order seeking a stay of proceedings on a foreclosure judgment
obtained against her in the Hartford Superior Court on February 16, 2010. Plaintiff’s
Complaint sought “RICO remedies” against eight state court judges, two attorneys, a
member of the Connecticut Judicial Review Counsel, the Banking Commissioner of the
State of Connecticut, the Attorney General’s Office, and the City of Hartford.
On January 10, 2014, Plaintiff filed [Doc. # 22] a Motion for Reconsideration of
this ruling, and on February 10, 2014 [Doc. # 30] she filed what she titled an “Urgent
Extremely [Sensitive] Affidavit Breach of Federal Court Protective Order By The Lower
Court.”1

1

On January 8, 2014, the Court approved [Doc. # 19], the Recommended Ruling
of partial dismissal of Plaintiff’s Complaint dismissing Counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 13 and 19 for
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and all claims against the eight
judges named as defendants on the basis judicial immunity. Defendants have not been
served with a summons and complaint in this action as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4. On
January 16, 2014, the Clerk’s Office sent [Doc. # 23] Plaintiff copies of the USM 205

I.

Legal Standard
Motions for reconsideration require the movant to set “forth concisely the matters

or controlling decisions which [the movant] believes the Court overlooked in the initial
decision or order.” Loc. Civ. R. 7(c)1. The Second Circuit has explained that “[t]he
major grounds justifying reconsideration are ‘an intervening change of controlling law,
the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest
injustice.’” Virgin Atl. Airways, Ltd. v. Nat’l Mediation Bd., 956 F.2d 1245, 1255 (2d Cir.
1992) (quoting 18B C. Wright, A. Miller, & E. Cooper, Federal Practice & Procedure
§ 4478). This standard is “strict,” however, and reconsideration should be granted only if
“the moving party can point to controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked—
matters, in other words, that might reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion
reached by the court.” Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995). If
“the moving party seeks solely to relitigate an issue already decided,” the court should
deny the motion for reconsideration and adhere to its prior decision. Id.
II.

Discussion
In its ruling denying Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order, the

Court discussed two separate grounds for its inability to intervene in an ongoing state
court foreclosure proceeding: the Ani-Injunction Act and the Younger abstention
doctrine. (Order Denying TRO at 3–4.)

Form, which must be completed and returned to the Clerk’s Office in order for the
United Sates Marshalls to be able to serve Defendants.
2

In her motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff disputes the Court’s conclusion that
the Anti-Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2283, precludes the Court from enjoining her
ongoing state court action. (Pl’s Mot. at 8–9.) The Anti-Injunction Act provides:
A court of the United States may not grant an injunction to stay
proceedings in a State court except as expressly authorized by Act of
Congress, or where necessary in aid of its jurisdiction, or to protect or
effectuate its judgments.
28 U.S.C. § 2283. Noting that the act provides an exception where an injunction is
“expressly authorized by Act of Congress” or “necessary in aid of its jurisdiction,”
Plaintiff contends that the Anti-Injunction Act does not apply to her claims under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 and RICO and those seeking relief for violations of her constitutional rights
and for mortgage fraud. (Pl’s Mot. at 8–9.)
“Federal courts cannot enjoin state-court proceedings unless the intervention is
authorized expressly by federal statute or falls under one of two other exceptions to the
Anti-Injunction Act.” McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 857 (1994). The statutes that
Plaintiff cites do not, however, provide any such express exception to the Anti-Injunction
Act and Plaintiff does not cite any authority for the proposition that these statutes
authorize a federal court to enjoin state court proceedings. Additionally, in its original
ruling, the Court noted that intervention in Plaintiff’s ongoing state court action was also
barred by Younger abstention. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is
denied.
Plaintiff’s February 10, 2014 affidavit, which the Court will construe as another
motion for a temporary restraining order, also seeks to enjoin the ongoing state court
proceeding on the basis that despite the filing of the Complaint in this action, on
3

December 30, 2013, Judge Robaina granted an execution for ejectment on Plaintiff’s
property. (Affidavit at 9.) Plaintiff contends that this action violated her constitutional
rights and requests that this Court (1) “order the seizure and warrant” of Plaintiff’s
property, (2) order Judge Robaina to vacate the execution papers, and (3) for Defendants
to “cease and desist obstruction of Justice.” (Id. at 10–11.) As discussed above, however,
the claims against Judge Robaina have been dismissed. Additionally, for the reasons
discussed above, absent statutory authority under the Anti-Injunction Act or the
applicability of an exception to the Younger abstention doctrine—neither of which are
present in this case—the Court cannot intervene in an ongoing state court foreclosure
proceeding and has already addressed Plaintiff’s requests for the injunctive relief sought.
Accordingly, any injunctive relief sought in Plaintiff’s affidavit [Doc. # 30] is denied.
III.

Conclusion
For the reasons discussed above, Plaintiff’s motion [Doc. # 22] for reconsideration

and motion [Doc. # 30] for injunctive relief are DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/
Janet Bond Arterton, U.S.D.J.

Dated at New Haven, Connecticut this 19th day of March, 2014.

4