Ruggiero v. Clough et al

Filing 33

ORDER (SEE ATTACHED) denying without prejudice to refiling in his state court action 4 Motion for Denial of Transfer; denying without prejudice to refiling in his state court action 5 Motion for Consolidation of Action; denying 6 Motion to Tr ansfer to Regular Docket of the United States District Court in Hartford; denying without prejudice to refiling in his state court action 7 Motion Granting Of & Objection to "Bifurcation" Request for Denial of "Bifurcation"; de nying without prejudice to refiling in his state court action 8 Motion Request to Mark Judgment "Unsatisfied"; denying without prejudice to refiling in his state court action 9 Motion for Interested Persons as Defendants; denying with out prejudice to refiling in his state court action 10 Motion for Default; denying without prejudice to refiling in his state court action 11 Motion Granting Of & Objection to Request To Revise & Or Motion for Articulation & Motion to Stay Pend ing Ruling; denying without prejudice to refiling in his state court action 12 Motion for Default for Failure to Notify of Continuance; denying 16 Motion to Transfer to Regular Docket of the United States District Court in Hartford; denying wit hout prejudice to refiling in his state court action 17 Motion for Consolidation of Action; denying without prejudice to refiling in his state court action 18 Motion Granting Of & Objection to "Bifurcation" Request for Denial of " ;Bifurcation"; denying without prejudice to refiling in his state court action 19 Motion Request to Mark Judgment "Unsatisfied"; denying without prejudice to refiling in his state court action 20 Motion for Interested Persons as Defendants; denying without prejudice to refiling in his state court action 21 Motion Granting Of & Objection to Request To Revise & Or Motion for Articulation & Motion to Stay Pending Ruling; denying without prejudice to refiling in his state cou rt action 22 Motion for Default; denying without prejudice to refiling in his state court action 23 Motion for Default for Failure to Notify of Continuance; denying without prejudice to refiling in his state court action 24 Motion for Denial of Transfer; denying 29 Motion to Amend/Correct. Signed by Judge Joan G. Margolis on 1/23/2015. (Watson, M.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

------------------------------------------------x
:
NICHOLAS A. RUGGIERO
:
:
:
v.
:
:
RICHARD CLOUGH, ET AL.
:
:
------------------------------------------------x

3:15 CV 59 (JBA)

DATE: JANUARY 23, 2015

RULING ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS,
RULING ON MULTIPLE MOTIONS, AND RULING RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL
On January 13, 2015, plaintiff Nicholas A. Ruggiero commenced this action pro se,
against Richard Clough, Brian D. Danforth, Esq., Martin Libbin, O'Donovan Murphy, and Joann
Miller, all in their official and individual capacities. (Dkt. #1).1 In his Complaint, plaintiff
alleges claims of excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment, a violation of the due
process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, a violation of the First Amendment, a violation
of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12132(1)(b), assault and battery, fraud,
embezzlement, larceny, fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment,
civil RICO, perjury, contempt of court, interfering with "[p]laintiff['s]" probate matters and
with a previous federal case, "bed bugs, sick cat allowed to stay creating sick plaintiff, no hot
water, [and] comput[e]r damage." (Dkt. #1-1, at 3-4).
On the same day that plaintiff filed his Complaint, he filed a Motion for Leave to
Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Dkt. #2; see also Dkt. #28), along with eighteen additional
motions (Dkts. ## 4-12, 16-24), and on January 20, 2015, plaintiff filed a Motion to Amend

1

Attached to plaintiff's Complaint is a copy of the Complaint filed in the Connecticut
Superior Court, Small Claims Session, in which he asserts the same claims against the same
defendants. (Dkt. #1-2). See also note 2 infra.

his Complaint. (Dkt. #29). On January 20, 2015, United States District Judge Janet Bond
Arterton referred these twenty pending motions to this Magistrate Judge. (Dkt. #30).
I. IFP AND MERITS OF PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT
Plaintiff's Financial Affidavit in support of his Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma
Pauperis is unsigned. Accordingly, plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
(Dkt. #2) is denied without prejudice to refiling, as plaintiff has failed to properly complete
the in forma pauperis application.
Plaintiff purports to commence this action by Notice of Removal from State Court;
however, removal is a procedure for a defendant or defendants to "remove any civil action
from a State court" to a district court for the district within which such action is pending. 28
U.S.C. § 1446. The notice of removal of a civil action shall be filed within thirty days after
the receipt by the defendant of a copy of the initial pleading. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b). The
action that plaintiff purports to remove is an action in Connecticut Superior Court, Small
Claims Session, which he, as the plaintiff in that action, commenced on September 5, 2014,
and in which defendants filed their answer on September 9, 2014. Plaintiff lacks grounds to
remove his own action to this Court.
Additionally, jurisdiction over the claims asserted in plaintiff's rambling state court –
now federal court — complaint is lacking. Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.
U.S. CONST., Art. III. To come within this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction, plaintiff must
plead a colorable claim arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States, or a claim
between parties with complete diversity of citizenship and damages exceeding $75,000. See
Da Silva v. Kinsho Int’l Corp, 229 F.3d 358, 363 (2d Cir. 2000). In this case, plaintiff's
Complaint, which is a duplicate of his Complaint filed in the Connecticut Superior Court, Small

2

Claims Session, fails to assert a colorable claim to satisfy federal jurisdictional requirements.
While plaintiff asserts that his case involves claims, inter alia, under the Fourteenth and First
Amendments, civil RICO statute, and the ADA, his underlying allegations, which are largely
incoherent, fail to state such claims. Additionally, as drafted, plaintiff's Complaint fails to
comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which Rule provides that "[a]
pleading that states a claim for relief must contain," among other things, "a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." On January 20, 2015,
plaintiff filed a Motion to Amend his Complaint (Dkt. #29), but such motion is devoid of
amendments. In light of plaintiff's improper removal of his state court action, plaintiff's
Motion to Amend his Complaint (Dkt. #29) is denied and this Magistrate Judge recommends
to Judge Arterton that his Complaint be remanded back to state court.
II. ADDITIONAL MOTIONS
Plaintiff has filed eighteen additional motions, the first nine of which bear the state
court case number and are directed to the Small Claims action, and the remaining nine
motions are identical in content but bear this case number and are directed to this court.
(Dkts. ##4-12, 16-24).
A. MOTION FOR DENIAL OF TRANSFER (Dkts. ##4, 24) AND MOTION TO
TRANSFER TO THE REGULAR DOCKET OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT IN HARTFORD (Dkts. ##6, 16)
In plaintiff's Motion for Denial of Transfer (Dkts. ##4, 24), and Motion to Transfer to
the Regular Docket of the United States District Court in Hartford (Dkts. ##6, 16; see also
Dkts. ##26-27), plaintiff seeks to have this action transferred to Hartford. Plaintiff's Motion
for Denial of Transfer (Dkts. ##4, 24) relates to actions taken in his state court case.
Accordingly, plaintiff's Motion (Dkts. ##4, 24) is denied without prejudice to refiling in his

3

state court action.
In his Motion to Transfer to the Regular Docket of the United States District Court in
Hartford (Dkts. ##6, 16), plaintiff seeks to have this case transferred from New Haven to
Hartford for his convenience. Rule 40(a) of the Local Rules for the United States District
Court for the District of Connecticut reads: "The place of assignment of a case will be
determined by the Court in accordance with a general policy on assignments adopted from
time to time by the active Judges of the Court in the interest of the effective administration
of justice." Upon "removal" to this court, plaintiff's case was assigned to the Honorable Janet
Bond Arterton who sits in New Haven. Once the case is assigned to a Judge, the case
remains "assigned . . . from filing to termination." D. Conn. Civ. R. 40(b). Accordingly,
plaintiff's Motion to Transfer to the Regular Docket of the United States District Court in
Hartford (Dkts. ##6, 16) is denied.
B. MOTION FOR CONSOLIDATION OF ACTION (Dkts. ##5, 17)
This five-line motion consists only of a reference to Connecticut Practice Book Section
9-5(a), without any connection to pending cases for consolidation. (Dkts. ##5, 17). The
Connecticut Practice Book does not apply to an action in federal court; rather, the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure govern. Accordingly, plaintiff's Motion for Consolidation of Action
(Dkts. ##5, 17) is denied without prejudice to refiling in his state court action.
C. MOTION FOR INTERESTED PERSONS AS DEFENDANTS (Dkts. ##9, 20)
In plaintiff's Motion for Interested Persons As Defendants (Dkts. ##9, 20), plaintiff
lists the names of the defendants already named in this case and recites Connecticut Practice
Book Section 9-6, which provision does not apply to an action proceeding in federal court.
Accordingly, plaintiff's Motion for Interested Persons as Defendants (Dkts. ##9, 20) is denied

4

without prejudice to refiling in his state court action.
D. MOTION FOR DEFAULT FOR FAILURE TO APPEAR (Dkts. ##10, 22) AND
MOTION FOR DEFAULT FOR FAILURE TO NOTIFY OF CONTINUANCE (Dkts.
##12, 23)
In his Motion for Default for Failure to Appear, plaintiff, citing Connecticut Practice
Book Section 10-12, asserts that defendants failed to appear for an Examination Judgment
Debtor hearing in the state court action. (Dkts. ##10, 22). Similarly, in his Motion for Default
for Failure to Notify of Continuance (Dkts. ##12, 23), plaintiff posits no argument, references
a date that pre-dates this suit by a year, and generally references the Connecticut Practice
Book.

As stated above, this action is proceeding in federal court pursuant to the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure, not the Connecticut Practice Book, and defendants have not
defaulted in this action, which was filed just last week. Accordingly, plaintiff's Motion for
Default for Failure to Appear (Dkts. ##10, 22) and his Motion for Default for Failure to Notify
of Continuance (Dkts. ##12, 23) are denied without prejudice to refiling in his state court
action.
E. MOTION GRANTING OF & OBJECTION TO REQUEST TO REVISE & OR
MOTION FOR ARTICULATION & MOTION TO STAY PENDING RULING (Dkts.
##11, 21), MOTION GRANTING OF & OBJECTION TO "BIFURCATION"
REQUEST FOR DENIAL OF "BIFURCATION" (Dkts. ##7, 18), AND MOTION
REQUEST TO MARK JUDGMENT "UNSATISFIED" (Dkts. ##8, 19)
Plaintiff's Motion Granting of and Objection to Request to Revise and or Motion For
Articulation and Motion to Stay Pending Ruling (Dkts. #11, 21) relates to motions filed in the
state court action, and in support of this motion, plaintiff relies on Connecticut Practice Book
Sections 17-48 and 24-33. Plaintiff's Motion Granting of and Objection to "Bifurcation"
Request for Denial of "Bifurcation" (Dkts. ##7, 18) relates to a bifurcation motion filed by
defendants in his state court action. Similarly, in support of plaintiff's Motion Request to Mark

5

Judgment "Unsatisfied[,]" plaintiff relies on Connecticut Practice Book Section 9-17. (Dkts.
##8, 19).2 These six motions (Dkts. ##7, 8, 11, 18, 19, 21) are denied without prejudice
to refiling in his state court action.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma
Pauperis (Dkt. #2) is denied without prejudice to refiling;
plaintiff's Motion for Denial of Transfer (Dkts. ##4, 24) is denied without prejudice
to refiling in his state court action;
plaintiff's Motion to Transfer to Regular Docket of the United States District Court in
Hartford (Dkts. ##6, 16) is denied;
plaintiff's Motion for Consolidation of Action (Dkts. ##5, 17) is denied without
prejudice to refiling in his state court action;
plaintiff's Motion for Interested Persons as Defendants (Dkts. ##9, 20) is denied
without prejudice to refiling in his state court action;
plaintiff's Motion for Default for Failure to Appear (Dkts. ##10, 22) is denied without
prejudice to refiling in his state court action;
plaintiff's Motion for Default For Failure to Notify of Continuance (Dkts. ##12, 23) is
denied without prejudice to refiling in his state court action;
plaintiff's Motion Granting Of & Objection to Request To Revise & Or Motion For
Articulation & Motion to Stay Pending Ruling (Dkts. ##11, 21) is denied without prejudice
to refiling in his state court action;

2

Plaintiff also had a Housing Court action in the Connecticut Superior Court, Small Claims
session, against defendant Clough, in which this Motion to Mark Judgment "Unsatisfied" was filed.
(Dkts. ##8, 19).

6

plaintiff's Motion Granting Of & Objection to "Bifurcation" Request for Denial of
"Bifurcation" (Dkts. ##7, 18) is denied without prejudice to refiling in his state court action;
plaintiff's Motion Request to Mark Judgment "Unsatisfied" (Dkts. ##8, 19) is denied
without prejudice to refiling in his state court action;
plaintiff's Motion to Amend (Dkt. #29) is denied;
and this Magistrate Judge recommends to Judge Arterton that the case, which was
improperly removed from state court, be remanded back to state court forthwith.
See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(written objections to ruling must be filed within
fourteen days after service of same); FED. R. CIV. P. 6(a) & 72; Rule 72.2 of the Local
Rules for United States Magistrate Judges, United States District Court for the District of
Connecticut; Small v. Sec’y, H & HS, 892 F.2d 15, 16 (2d Cir. 1989)(failure to file timely
objection to Magistrate Judge’s recommended ruling may preclude further appeal
to Second Circuit.).
Dated at New Haven, this 23rd day of January, 2015.
_/s/ Joan G. Margolis, USMJ_____
Joan Glazer Margolis
United States Magistrate Judge

7