Wright v. Semple et al

Filing 24

ORDER. For the reasons discussed in the attached, Plaintiff's 16 Motion to Alter or Amend and/or Motion for Reconsideration, 18 Motion for Relief from Judgment, and 21 Motion to Reopen Case are DENIED. Plaintiff's fourth 19 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED as moot. Signed by Judge Michael P. Shea on 3/15/2018. (Taykhman, N.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

IAN WRIGHT,
Plaintiff,

:
:
:
v.
:
Civil No. 3:17cv1530 (MPS)
:
SCOTT SEMPLE, et al.,
:
Defendants.
:
March 15, 2018
________________________________________________________________________________

RULING AND ORDER
The plaintiff, Ian Wright, sought to proceed in forma pauperis in this case. The Court
determined that the plaintiff had not truthfully answered the questions on the application to proceed
in forma pauperis and afforded him two opportunities to file a truthful application. Specifically, the
plaintiff repeatedly stated that he had received no money from any source in the past twelve months,
see, e.g., ECF No. 13 at 2, ¶6, despite the fact that his inmate trust account statement showed
multiple deposits. See, e.g., ECF No. 13 at 7-8. When the plaintiff persisted in filing applications
containing false statements, and neither acknowledged nor explained why he made false statements
under penalty of perjury, the Court denied his application and dismissed the case. ECF No. 15.
Since the entry of the order dismissing the case, the plaintiff has filed a motion to alter or
amend and/or motion for reconsideration, a declaration to demonstrate good cause, a motion for
relief from judgment, a fourth motion to proceed in forma pauperis, a “demonstration of good
cause,” and a motion to reopen this case.
In his motion for reconsideration, the plaintiff states that upon issuance of the prior rulings
he received the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF), but not the actual decision. The Prisoner
Electronic Filing Program rules provide that, upon the filing of an order by the Court, the NEF is
sent to the prison where it is printed by prison officials and given to the inmate. The Court also

mails a copy of the order to the inmate, see CTAO-16-21 Standing Order on Prisoner Electronic
Filing Program (Updated), www.ctd.uscourts.gov/district-connecticut-public-administrative-orders
(last visited March 7, 2018), and did so in this case. (1/30/2018 Staff Notes.) The plaintiff
nonetheless states in his motion to reopen that he did not receive a copy of the order by mail,
although he did receive a copy of the Court’s order dismissing the case, which was mailed to the
same address. He did not contact the Court to determine what the ruling said or to request another
copy.
Even absent a copy of the ruling, the NEF for the most recent order—which the plaintiff
admits receiving—specifically stated that the plaintiff could file a third application, directed him to
answer all questions truthfully, and ordered him to demonstrate good cause for failing to do so on
the prior applications. ECF No. 11. The plaintiff was on notice that he had not answered all
questions truthfully and was being given another chance to submit a truthful application and explain
why he had not done so previously. The application asked for the total amount received from any
sources. The plaintiff knew that he received deposits to his account. Under the circumstances, the
Court concludes that the plaintiff had sufficient notice and knowledge to discern the error in his
application.
The plaintiff also claims that he cannot be held responsible because his counselor refused to
provide him with information about deposits to his inmate account and told him he could indicate
zero on the form. The plaintiff refers the Court to Bell v. Kay, 847 F.3d 866 (7th Cir. 2017), in
support of this argument. In that case, the Seventh Circuit held that the district court acted
unreasonably in denying the plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis because it failed to
determine whether the plaintiff was at fault for failing to provide his inmate account statement. Id.
at 868. Bell is not applicable here.
2

First, as the District of Connecticut is not in the Seventh Circuit, the decision is not binding
precedent. Second, even if the Court were persuaded by the holding, the case is distinguishable
because it is readily ascertainable from the record in this case that correctional officials were not
responsible for the false statements. The plaintiff did not need any additional information from the
counselor to complete the form. He had a copy of his inmate account statement for the preceding
six months that showed all deposits during the period. The plaintiff could have totaled the amounts
and written the total on the form.1 In any event, it was apparent, even from the information
submitted to the Court, that the truthful answer to the question about money received from other
sources was not “zero,” which was the plaintiff’s answer. Thus, the plaintiff’s failure to respond
truthfully is attributed solely to him, not to any correctional official. Nor does the Court accept the
notion that a purported direction from the counselor is a justification for including false statements.
The application asked for the total amount received from any sources. The plaintiff knew that he
received deposits to his account. It strains credulity to assume that a person could knowingly put
false information on a form yet believe that he had answered all questions truthfully.
Finally, the plaintiff states that he was permitted to proceed in forma pauperis in two other
cases where his application was completed in the same way. See Wright v. Malloy, et al., No. 3:16cv-1179 (SRU); Wright v. Bibens, et al., No. 3:17-cv-1917 (MPS). That the Court may not have
identified the false statement in other applications does not alter the fact that the statement was false
and that, when twice informed of this fact, the plaintiff was required to correct the false statement.
The plaintiff submitted three applications containing false statements, two after being

1

The Court notes that the form asks for information for the past twelve months, while the inmate is
required to submit a copy of his inmate account statement for only the prior six months. If his counselor was
unwilling to provide a copy of his statement for the prior twelve months, the plaintiff could have included the
amount for the prior six months on the form and indicated that he was unable to obtain information on the six
months before that.

3

informed of the error. He has not demonstrated good cause for including the false statement or
failing to correct the error. Accordingly, the plaintiff’s Motion to Alter or Amend and/or Motion
for Reconsideration [ECF No. 16], Motion for Relief from Judgment [ECF No. 18], and Motion to
Reopen Case [ECF No. 21] are DENIED. The plaintiff’s fourth Application for Leave to Proceed
in Forma Pauperis [ECF No. 19] is DENIED as moot.
If the plaintiff wishes to pursue the claims in this case, he may file a new case with a truthful
application to proceed in forma pauperis.
It is so ordered.
Signed this 15th day of March, 2018, at Hartford, Connecticut.
/s/
Michael P. Shea
United States District Judge

4