RAJKARNIKAR v. CLERKS (2024)

RULING RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT

On September 3, 2024, the plaintiff Nirjala Rajkarnikar, proceeding pro se, commenced this action against the “Clerks who held papers,” “District Court Clerk 1,” and “District Court Clerk 2.” (Doc. No. 1). That same day, the plaintiff filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. (Doc. No. 2).

On September 5, 2024, the Court (Nagala, J.) granted the plaintiff's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. (Doc. No. 9). On September 6, 2024, the Court (Nagala, J.) referred to the undersigned review of the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (Doc. No. 10). For the reasons that follow, the Court recommends dismissal of the Complaint without prejudice.

I. LEGAL STANDARD

28 U.S.C. § 1915 authorizes the Court to grant in forma pauperis status to an indigent plaintiff who submits an affidavit demonstrating their inability to pay the required filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). The same statute also contains a provision that protects against the abuse of this privilege. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Subsection (e) provides that the Court “shall dismiss the case at any time if [it] determines that ․ the action ․ (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

A valid complaint need not plead “detailed factual allegations,” however, it must state “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). A claim is plausible on its face where the facts pleaded “allow[ ] the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Stated differently, the complaint needs to “disclose sufficient information to permit the defendant ‘to have a fair understanding of what the plaintiff is complaining about and to know whether there is a legal basis for recovery.’ ” Kittay v. Kornstein, 230 F.3d 531, 541 (2d Cir. 2000) (quoting Ricciuti v. New York City Transit Auth., 941 F.2d 119, 123 (2d Cir. 1991)). An action has no arguable legal basis when the defendant is immune from suit. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989); Montero v. Travis, 171 F.3d 757, 760 (2d Cir. 1999) (“A complaint will be dismissed as frivolous when it is clear that the defendants are immune from suit.”) (internal quotations omitted).

When, as here, a plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court must “construe [the] complaint liberally and interpret it to raise the strongest arguments that it suggests ․ particularly when the complaint alleges civil rights violations.” McFadden v. Noeth, 827 F. App'x 20, 24 (2d Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see Stancuna v. New Haven Legal Assistance, 383 F. App'x 23, 24 (2d Cir. 2010) (“[W]e nonetheless construe the submissions of a pro se litigant liberally and interpret them so as to raise the strongest arguments that they suggest.”) (internal quotations omitted).

II. MERITS OF THE COMPLAINT

Turning to the merits of the complaint, as set forth herein, the Court finds that (a) “Clerks who held papers” or “District Court Clerks” are not proper defendants to the action and (b) the plaintiff fails to plead by a short and plain statement any legally cognizable claim upon which relief may be granted.

A. Factual Background

The factual circumstances giving rise to the complaint are unclear and very difficult to ascertain. Additionally, many facts pleaded in this complaint appear to pertain to previous or pending matters in state court or matters previously filed with this Court that have been dismissed. Nevertheless, the Court will attempt to provide some recitation of the facts.

The plaintiff appears to assert that the Court has ignored numerous documents she has previously filed in other cases. Specifically, the plaintiff references one filing totaling 39 pages regarding “Removal of Case” and a second filing totaling 50 pages regarding “Eligibility Test Pages.” (Doc. No. 1 at 2). The plaintiff attaches to her complaint a 50-page document explaining why federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction over her claims. (Doc. No. 1-1). The plaintiff previously filed the same document on August 26, 2024 in at least two other cases after those cases were closed. See Rajkarnikar v. US Attorney's Office, 3:24cv446 (KAD) (Doc. No. 51); Rajkarnikar v. CT Superior Courts, 3:24cv1316 (KAD) (Doc. No. 11). Following the attachment, the plaintiff includes a five-page letter. (Doc. No. 1-2). The letter begins with three handwritten pages in which she details the interactions with state and federal court clerks that gave rise to her complaint. (Id. at 1-3). The plaintiff then attaches one typed document arguing the “legal reasons or arguments why motion to dismiss is correct,” which appears to pertain to a separate eviction case against the plaintiff. (Id. at 4). The final page of the letter appears to be a copy of a text order entered in one of the plaintiff's previous cases in federal court, concluding that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over her claims pertaining to a housing dispute. (Id. at 5).

The three handwritten pages in the letter following the 50-page attachment appear to set forth the crux of the plaintiff's complaint. In the three handwritten pages, the plaintiff states that court clerks in both state and federal court bullied her and called the United States Marshals to intimidate her because she asked why her papers were not filed properly. (Id. at 1). The plaintiff claims that she has had to visit the Clerk's Office two to three times to file her “Eligibility Test Papers” that show her federal and state law claims can be heard in federal court, but that they have not been filed. (Id.). The plaintiff states that the clerks treated her with “hate” by pushing the panic button, and that as a result, she does not trust them with her cases against government officials. (Id. at 2-3). Consequently, the plaintiff asserts that the District Court clerks deprived her of her constitutional rights by refusing her filings and not resolving her cases. (Id. at 1). In her request for relief in her complaint, the plaintiff demands “relief from abuse!” (Doc. No. 1 at 4).

In the 50-page attachment, which the plaintiff alleges the District Court clerks have ignored, the plaintiff states that her constitutional rights were violated in state court and by several federal judges. (Doc. No. 1-1 at 7). The plaintiff describes two evictions, a family court case, and an employment dispute with her former employer in which her car was damaged and her employment was wrongfully terminated. (Id. at 12). These facts appear to be the subject of the plaintiff's previous legal matters in state court and a previous lawsuit she filed in federal court in Rajkarnikar v. MGM Resorts International, 3:22cv1371 (AWT). The plaintiff argues that her employment dispute pertains to discrimination which provides the court with federal question jurisdiction, and the remaining matters form part of the same case or controversy such that the federal courts may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them. (Doc. No. 1-1 at 11-41).

The complaint does not list the causes of action brought in this lawsuit.

B. “District Court Clerks” Are Not Proper Defendants

The complaint names as defendants “Clerks who held papers,” “District Court Clerk 1,” and “District Court Clerk 2.” (Doc. No. 1 at 1). At the bottom of the same page where the plaintiff lists the parties and their addresses, the plaintiff lists the defendants as “District Court Clerks” at 450 Main Street in Hartford, Connecticut. (Id.). The Court understands this to refer to the unnamed individual clerks in the Clerk's Office at the federal courthouse in Hartford, Connecticut.¹

To the extent the plaintiff is suing the individual unnamed federal court clerks with whom she interacted at the Clerk's Office in Hartford, Connecticut, in their individual capacities, these claims are subject to dismissal. Quasi-judicial immunity “extends to people, other than judges, ‘who perform functions closely associated with the judicial process.’ ” Irazu v. Sainz de Aja, No. 23-702-CV, 2023 WL 8447256, at *2 (2d Cir. Dec. 6, 2023) (quoting Olivia v. Heller, 839 F.2d 37, 39 (2d Cir. 1988)). “A court's inherent power to control its docket is part of its function of resolving disputes between parties. This is a function for which judges and their supporting staff are afforded absolute immunity.” Rodriguez v. Weprin, 116 F.3d 62, 66 (2d Cir. 1997). “[T]he same policies underlying immunity for judges also justify a similar grant of immunity to clerks for performance of tasks which are judicial in nature and an integral part of the judicial process.” Id.; see also Mullis v. U.S. Bankr. Ct. for Dist. of Nevada, 828 F.2d 1385, 1390 (9th Cir. 1987) (“Court clerks have absolute quasi-judicial immunity ․ when they perform tasks that are an integral part of the judicial process.”); Sindram v. Suda, 986 F.2d 1459, 1460 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (“[C]lerks, like judges, are immune from damages suits for performance of tasks that are an integral part of the judicial process.”); Linda Kulmann a.k.a. Linda Ceniccola-Kulmann, Plaintiff v. Traci Biolo, Waterbury Prob. Ct. Chief Clerk, Americo R. Carchia, Waterbury Prob. Judge Defendants, No. 3:24-CV-01077-MPS, 2024 WL 3988255, at *5 (D. Conn. Aug. 29, 2024) (finding court clerk immune where court clerk allegedly failed to file documents plaintiff provided). Because any actions the District Court clerks took here were quasi-judicial in nature, including filing or failing to file the plaintiff's documents and calling the United States Marshals Service for assistance, the District Court clerks are entitled to absolute immunity from plaintiff's claims. The Court therefore respectfully recommends that the complaint be dismissed.

C. The Plaintiff Fails to Adequately Plead Any Legally Cognizable Claim Upon Which Relief Could Be Granted

The Court further finds that the plaintiff has failed to state any claim upon which relief can be granted. Similar to the plaintiff's pleading of the facts, the plaintiff fails to provide a short and plain statement of a claim showing entitlement to relief as required by Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Additionally, even construing the pleadings broadly to plead a failure by the defendants to file the plaintiff's 50-page “Eligibility Test Papers,” the plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, as such a claim is not legally cognizable.

Under Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[a] pleading that states a claim for relief must contain ․ a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Id. “This short and plain statement must be ‘sufficient to give the defendants fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’ ” Ruggiero v. Mobile Crisis Team, No 3:12-CV-499 (VLB), 2012 WL 4854660, at *3 (D. Conn. Oct. 11, 2012) (quoting Jones v. Nat'l Commc'ns And Surveillance Networks, 22 Fed. App'x. 31, 32 (2d. Cir. Feb. 21, 2008)). “[The Court] may dismiss [a] complaint in its entirety in those cases ‘in which the complaint is so confused, ambiguous, vague, or otherwise unintelligible that its true substance, if any, is well disguised.’ ” Gonzalez v. Maurer, No 3:17-CV-1402 (MPS), 2018 WL 401527, at *4 (D. Conn. Jan. 12, 2018) (quoting Salahuddin v. Cuomo, 861 F.2d 40, 42 (2d Cir. 1988)).

The complaint at issue here fails to provide anything resembling a short and plain statement of a claim. Three pages of the 61-page complaint assert specific facts against the District Court clerks. (Doc. No. 1-2 at 1-3). It is difficult to connect any of those facts to any one person because no specific individual is named in the action, and the complaint fails to allege any facts regarding when these events occurred. The remaining 59 pages are dedicated to relitigating issues related to prior or pending matters in state court or matters previously filed with this Court that have been dismissed. The pages are further interspersed with unrelated pictures, Bible verses, video links, and insults directed at the Court and its clerks.

To the extent the plaintiff asserts a claim that the federal District Court clerks in Hartford, Connecticut failed to file her documents, the plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. (See Doc. No. 1-2 at 1-3). Not only are court clerks immune from suit for quasi-judicial tasks as discussed above, but the 50-page document in question was filed in at least two previous cases. See Rajkarnikar v. US Attorney's Office, 3:24cv446 (KAD) (Doc. No. 51); Rajkarnikar v. CT Superior Courts, 3:24cv1316 (KAD) (Doc. No. 11). The plaintiff's 39-page “Notice of Removal” was also filed in a previous case. See Rajkarnikar v. CT Superior Courts, 3:24cv1316 (KAD) (Doc. No. 1). To the extent the plaintiff complains those filings were “ignored,” those cases were closed on June 14, 2024 and August 20, 2024, respectively. The Court (Thompson, J.) has previously advised the plaintiff that she cannot “add pages” to previously closed cases, and that doing so “consume[s] valuable resources of the Clerk's Office for no purpose.” See Rajkarnikar v. Ernst & Young, 3:21cv1559 (AWT) (Doc. Nos. 90, 91).

D. Leave to Amend

Rule 15(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[t]he court should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires.” However, “[l]eave to amend, though liberally granted, may properly be denied for: undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, futility of amendment, etc.” Ruotolo v. City of New York, 514 F.3d 184, 191 (2d Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). “[A] proposed claim is futile if, accepting the facts alleged by the party seeking amendment as true and construing them in the light most favorable to that party, it does not plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” Fraser v. Caribe, No. 3:20-CV-71 (SVN), 2022 WL 1210720, at * 3 (D. Conn. Apr. 25, 2022) (internal quotations and citation omitted).

Here, based on the Court's review of the complaint, it does appear that any amendment would be futile and that dismissal with prejudice is appropriate. But because this is the first initial review order, and the plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court will recommend that the complaint be dismissed without prejudice and that the plaintiff be given one opportunity to file an amended complaint which addresses the deficiencies highlighted in this ruling.

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Court recommends that the plaintiff's complaint be DISMISSED without prejudice both because the plaintiff brings claims against individuals protected by absolute immunity and because the complaint fails to articulate any legally cognizable claim upon which relief can be granted. The Court further recommends that the plaintiff be given one opportunity to file an Amended Complaint that asserts at least one viable claim upon which relief could be granted against a proper defendant and does so in a plain and concise statement.

This is a Recommended Ruling. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(1). Any objections to this Recommended Ruling must be filed with the Clerk of the Court within fourteen (14) days after filing of such order. See D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 72.2(a). Any party receiving notice or an order or recommended ruling from the Clerk by mail shall have five (5) additional days to file any objection. See D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 72.2(a). Failure to file a timely objection will preclude appellate review. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a) & 72; D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 72.2; Impala v. United States Dept. of Justice, 670 F. App'x 32 (2d Cir. 2016) (summary order) (failure to file timely objection to Magistrate Judge's recommended ruling will preclude further appeal to Second Circuit); Small v. Secretary of H.H.S., 892 F.2d 15 (2d Cir. 1989) (per curiam).

In the alternative, the plaintiff may opt to file an Amended Complaint in place of an objection by October 15, 2024, which sets forth allegations and claims consistent with this Recommended Ruling. To be sure, if the plaintiff does elect to file an Amended Complaint, that pleading must comply with the Federal and Local Rules of Civil Procedure. It must be captioned “Amended Complaint,” and will completely supersede (that is, replace) the current Amended Complaint. Moreover, it must contain a short and plain statement of the claim(s) showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief (see Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)) and must set forth those claims in numbered paragraphs (see Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b)).

Before fling any Amended Complaint, the plaintiff must carefully review this Recommended Ruling and ensure that any Amended Complaint addresses the deficiencies identified herein. The Court will review the Amended Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). If the Amended Complaint fails to state a claim for which relief may be granted as to any claim already reviewed by the Court, such claims may be dismissed with prejudice upon review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

FOOTNOTES

1.   The Court does not understand the plaintiff to be suing any individual state clerks, despite briefly mentioning them in the complaint, because the caption and parties listed in the complaint clearly identify the federal District Court clerks at the federal courthouse in Hartford, Connecticut.

Robert M. Spector, United States Magistrate Judge