Jumpp v. Rovella et al

Filing 10

RULING AND ORDER DENYING 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Junior Jumpp, 6 Order Granting Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis is VACATED. No Further Funds shall be collected from the plaintiff's prisoner account pursuant to the Prisoner Authorization Form. Signed by Judge Janet Bond Arterton on 1/21/2014.(Payton, R.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
JUNIOR JUMPP
v.

Case No. 3:13cv1806 (JBA)

JAMES C. ROVELLA, ET AL.
RULING AND ORDER
The plaintiff, Junior Jumpp, was incarcerated at Northern
Correctional Institution (“Northern”) when he filed this civil
rights complaint pro se pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

He

currently resides in Hartford, Connecticut.
The plaintiff asserts that Hartford Police Chief Rovella,
Police Sergeant Spell, Police Lieutenant Corl and Police Officers
Pia, Rodriguez, Pepler and Thorpe used excessive force against
him during his arrest and failed to provide him with medical
treatment for his injuries.

The plaintiff also sues Kimberly D.

Taylor who he identifies as a Senior Administrative Assistant for
the City of Hartford’s Office of Corporation Counsel.
The Prison Litigation Reform Act amended the statute
governing proceedings filed in forma pauperis.

In relevant part,

Section 804(d) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act amended 28
U.S.C. § 1915 by adding the following subsection:
(g) In no event shall a prisoner bring a
civil action or appeal a judgment in a civil
action or proceeding under this section if
the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior
1

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.
This provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act requires
the denial of plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma
pauperis in this case.

The plaintiff previously has had three

cases or appeals dismissed as frivolous prior to filing this
action.

See, e.g., Jummp v. Marinelli, 3:13cv615(AWT) (complaint

dismissed 6/28/13); Jumpp v. Reyes, 3:13cv637(AWT) (complaint
dismissed 5/13/13); Jumpp v. DOC,

3:13cv505(AWT) (complaint

dismissed 5/13/13).
Because the three strikes provision applies in this case,
the plaintiff may not bring the present action without payment of
the filing fee absent allegations of “imminent danger of serious
physical injury.”

See Pettus v. Morgenthau, 554 F.3d 293, 297

(2d Cir. 2009) (“indigent three-strikes prisoner [may] proceed
IFP in order to obtain a judicial remedy for an imminent
danger”).

To proceed without prepayment of the filing fee, the

plaintiff must meet two requirements.

He must show (1) the

imminent danger of serious physical injury he alleges is fairly
traceable to unlawful conduct alleged in the complaint and (2)
that a favorable judicial outcome would redress the injury.
2

See

id. at 296-97.

In addition, the danger of imminent harm must be

present at the time the complaint is filed.

See id. at 296.

The plaintiff alleges that on August 16, 2011, he was
driving a car in Hartford and noticed an unknown vehicle
following him.

During his attempt to try to get away from this

vehicle, he crashed his own vehicle.

He left his car at the

scene of the accident and ran to the back yard of a house where
defendants Corl and Rodriguez tackled him to the ground.
Defendants Pia, Pepler and Thorpe punched and kicked the
plaintiff as he lay on the ground.

After the defendants

handcuffed the plaintiff, Officer Pia struck the plaintiff in the
face.

The defendants escorted the plaintiff back to his vehicle

and placed him under arrest for possession of a weapon in the
trunk of the vehicle.
Defendant Spell refused to ensure that the plaintiff
received medical attention for his injuries.

The plaintiff

remained at the Hartford Police Station overnight and then
officers transported the plaintiff to Hartford Correctional
Center where he received treatment for his injuries.
Almost two years after the incident, the plaintiff filed a
citizen complaint with defendant Rovella regarding the August 16,
2011.

In August 2013, the plaintiff received a letter from

defendant Rovella indicating that a thorough investigation had
3

revealed that the actions of the officers involved in the
incident were justified, lawful and proper.

It is unclear what

role defendant Taylor played in the investigation of the
plaintiff’s complaint.

The plaintiff seeks monetary damages.

This incident involving the defendants occurred more than
two years prior to the filing of the complaint.

There are no

facts to suggest that the plaintiff was facing imminent serious
physical injury or harm at the time he filed the complaint.
Conclusion
The Order [Doc. No. 6] granting the plaintiff’s Application
to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is VACATED.

The Clerk is directed

to contact the Connecticut Department of Correction and request
that any funds collected from the plaintiff’s inmate account
pursuant to the plaintiff’s Prisoner Authorization Form be
returned to the plaintiff.

No further funds shall be collected

from the plaintiff’s prisoner account pursuant to the Prisoner
Authorization Form.

The plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In

Forma Pauperis [Doc. No. 2] is DENIED.
All further proceedings in this matter shall be held in
abeyance for twenty (20) days pending the plaintiff’s delivery of
the filing fee in the amount of $400.00 (cash, bank check or
money order made payable to the Clerk of Court) to the Clerk’s
Office, 915 Lafayette Boulevard, Bridgeport, CT
4

06604.

Failure

to tender the filing fee within twenty (20) days from the date of
this Order, or by February 11, 2014, will result in the dismissal
of this action.
SO ORDERED this 21st day of January 2014, at New Haven,
Connecticut.
/s/
JANET BOND ARTERTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5