Mitchell v. Livable City Initative et al

Filing 13

ORDER: Pursuant to the attached Order, and in light of this Court's 11 Order to Show Cause, the Court dismisses the Complaint without prejudice to a motion to reopen this case on or before February 4, 2015. Such motion must be accompan ied by an Amended Complaint which states particular facts from which a reasonable jury could conclude that Plaintiffs race and genderand not her alleged illegal theft of electrical servicewas the true cause of the termination of power to her residence. Plaintiff is further instructed that, along with her motion and Amended Complaint, she must submit payment of the filing fee. The Clerk is directed to close this file. Signed by Judge Vanessa L. Bryant on 11/4/2014.(Nadler, S.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

MILVENTA MITCHELL,
Plaintiff,
v.
LIVABLE CITY INITIATIVE, et al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CASE NO. 3:14-cv-00998 (VLB)
November 4, 2014

ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S [Dkt. #1] COMPLAINT AND DENYING AS MOOT
PLAINTIFF’S [Dkt. #3] MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL
Plaintiff Milventa Mitchell (“Mitchell”) has filed a pro se complaint alleging
that Defendants Livable City Initiative (“LCI”), United Illuminating Company
(“UIC”), and New Haven City Inspector David Caplian (“Caplian”) discriminated
against her on the basis of race and gender by shutting down her electric power,
preventing her from conducting necessary repairs and testing, and incorrectly
billing her for power usage.
The Plaintiff and all three defendants are citizens of Connecticut. See [Dkt.
#1, Compl. at 1-2]. The Complaint does not state any causes of action or cite to
any statutes, but liberally construing its allegations, the Court concludes that
Plaintiff seeks relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s claim under this statute is
the sole basis for this Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction.
However, the Complaint does not offer any nexus between the conduct
Plaintiff alleges and unconstitutional discrimination. Instead, it merely states that
Plaintiff is “a [f]emale [of] color,” her “[r]ight[s] were violated,” her electrical
service was terminated for “[n]o [r]eason,” the Defendants prevented her from

correcting purported violations, and they insisted that she undertake other
expensive, unnecessary repairs. See [id. at 3, 17, 19]. Such “conclusory
allegation[s] of discrimination . . . without evidentiary support or allegations of
particularized incidents, do[] not state a valid claim and so cannot withstand a
motion to dismiss.” Rivera-Powell v. New York City Bd. of Elections, 470 F.3d
458, 470 (2d Cir. 2006) (stating that to plead a valid discrimination claim under §
1983 a plaintiff “would have to show that [a defendant] intentionally discriminated
against her” which includes “a showing of intentional or purposeful
discrimination”) (citations and quotations omitted). As Plaintiff’s allegations are
insufficient to state a claim for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, see
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 663 (2009), the Court lacks subject-matter
jurisdiction to adjudicate her Complaint.
Accordingly, the Complaint is dismissed without prejudice. On or before
February 4, 2015, Plaintiff may file a motion to reopen this case, which must be
accompanied by an Amended Complaint which states particular facts from which
a reasonable jury could conclude that Plaintiff’s race and gender—and not her
alleged illegal theft of electrical service—was the true cause of the termination of
power to her residence. Plaintiff is further instructed that, along with her
Amended Complaint, she must submit payment of the filing fee.
/s/
Vanessa L. Bryant
United States District Judge
SO ORDERED this 4th day of November 2014, at Hartford, Connecticut.
2