Barlow v. State Atty General et al

Filing 5

ORDER DISMISSING CASE: For the reasons set forth in the attached ruling, the complaint is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The Clerk of Court shall close this case. Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 9/14/2017. (Lombard, N.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

CLINTON C. BARLOW, III,
Plaintiff,
v.
STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL, et al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

No. 3:17-cv-761 (JAM)

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
Plaintiff is a resident of New Jersey. He has filed a complaint against the Attorney
General of Connecticut as well as other officials of the National Association of Attorneys
General, the New Jersey Attorney’s General’s Office, and prosecutors in New Jersey. The
complaint alleges that defendants negligently failed to prosecute several unnamed agencies who
in turn violated plaintiff’s rights in some unspecified way. According to the complaint, the
Connecticut Attorney General is at fault in his capacity as president of the National Association
of Attorneys General for failure to mediate plaintiff’s grievances against others.
A district court must dismiss an in forma pauperis action if it determines that the action is
frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary
relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). In
determining whether a case is subject to dismissal, it is well-established that “pro se complaints
must be construed liberally and interpreted to raise the strongest arguments that they suggest.”
Sykes v. Bank of Am., 723 F.3d 399, 403 (2d Cir. 2013). Still, even a pro se complaint must plead
“enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).

1

Although the complaint lists many different defendants, it otherwise alleges only legal
conclusions of wrongdoing and does not allege facts that give rise to any plausible inference that
any of the named defendants have violated plaintiff’s rights. Accordingly, I conclude that the
complaint must be DISMISSED as manifestly baseless pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
The Clerk of Court shall close this case. It is so ordered.
Dated at New Haven this 14th day of September 2017.
/s/Jeffrey Alker Meyer
Jeffrey Alker Meyer
United States District Judge

2