In re Steven Bryan Fee Waiver Applications Dated October 25, 2019

In re Steven Bryan Fee Waiver Applications Dated October 25, 2019; October 28, 2019, November 7, 2019 and November 8, 2019

Nos. HHDCV185051479S, HHDCV185050660S, HHDCV165043579S, HHDCV185051242S

Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of Hartford, Hartford

December 31, 2019

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Judge (with first initial, no space for Sullivan, Dorsey, and Walsh): Sheridan, David M., J.

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE APPEAL FROM DENIAL OF APPLICATION FOR WAIVER OF FEES

Sheridan, J.

Steven Bryan is the applicant in five different Applications for Waiver of Fees (Form JD-CV-120) filed with this court and upon review of the application, subsequently denied by this court. In each case, the court (Sheridan, J.) denied the applications on the grounds that "the applicant has repeatedly filed actions with respect to the same or similar matters, such filings establish an extended pattern of frivolous filings that have been without merit, the application sought is in connection with an action before the court that is consistent with the applicant’s previous pattern of frivolous filings, and the granting of such application would constitute a flagrant misuse of Judicial Branch resources." The applicant requested a hearing on the denial of each application. On November 12, 2019 and December 9, 2019, the hearings were scheduled and the applicant appeared and was heard.

The court has reviewed and reconsidered the five applications according to the applicable standards of law. Having done so the court reaffirms its decision, denies all five applications, and enters orders regarding the handling of all future fee waiver applications.

A. Application dated October 25, 2019, "Steven Bryan v. Heather Smith and Autumn Transportation "

This application seeks a waiver of filing fees and service fees for a "civil case." Attached to the application is a summons naming "Heather Smith" and "Autumn Transportation" as defendants and a 13-page "Complaint/Affidavit Violation My Equail [sic.] Rights and Justice." The document is a disjointed, rambling, illogical and indecipherable listing of U.S. Supreme Court decisions, public acts, statutes, and religious invocations. As best as can be determined from the text, Heather Smith is alleged to be a "Manager" at Autumn Transportation. Autumn Transportation hired Steven Bryan as a student bus driver trainee and some time later terminated Steven Bryan’s employment. Mr. Bryan apparently believes that his termination was based upon racial discrimination. Mr. Bryan took his case to the CHRO and was apparently not satisfied with the outcome of that proceeding.

The application was denied by the court (Sheridan, J.) on the grounds that "the applicant has repeatedly filed actions with respect to the same or similar matters, such filings establish an extended pattern of frivolous filings that have been without merit, the application sought is in connection with an action before the court that is consistent with the applicant’s previous pattern of frivolous filings, and the granting of such application would constitute a flagrant misuse of Judicial Branch resources." The court also made a marginal notation that "There have been numerous prior filings, all have been rejected as frivolous" and "ORDERED: The Clerk shall accept no more filings related to this matter." (Emphasis in original.)

The court takes judicial notice of the proceedings in Steven O. Bryan v. Heather Smith of Specialty Transportation, HHDCV185050660S. In that case, Steven Bryan alleges that he was hired as a trainee for a position as part-time school bus driver by Heather Smith, "Training Supervisor" for Specialty Transportation, Inc. On December 15, 2015, Bryan was terminated. Mr. Bryan attributes his termination to "racial profiling" by Heather Smith and Mary Grazioso-Norton (apparently a DMV employee). The case was investigated and heard by the CHRO and, according to the complaint, dismissed. The defendant Heather Smith appeared in that litigation and filed a detailed answer denying any allegations of improper conduct.

On August 8, 2018, a nonsuit was entered against the plaintiff for failing to appear at a pre-trial conference. A subsequent motion to open (a fee waiver was granted) was denied. Several motions to reargue were also denied. The court also takes notice that on April 29, 2019, Mr. Bryan made a second application for a fee waiver in connection with a motion to open. That application was denied.

This present complaint is nothing more than a continuing obsessive effort by Mr. Bryan to make a claim against Heather Smith for termination of his employment in 2015. Why Mr. Bryan is now focused on "Autumn Transportation" rather than "Specialty Transportation" is a mystery. Ironically, it does not appear that Heather Smith was ever an employee of either company. At the hearing of this matter. Mr. Bryan made no effort to explain why this latest litigation is substantively different from the previous litigation.

On the basis of these findings, the court denies the appeal, since the application is consistent with the applicant’s previous pattern of frivolous filings and the granting of the application would clearly "constitute a flagrant misuse of Judicial Branch resources" within the meaning of General Statutes § 52-259b(c).

B. Application dated October 25, 2019, "Steven Bryan v. Charles J. Lilley "

This application seeks a waiver of filing fees for a motion to open. Attached to the application is a Motion to Open Judgment (Form JD-CV-107) in HHDCV-18-50501479S and an attached nine-page document: "My Motion for Reopen & Reconsideration of Complaint." The document apparently seeks to reopen a judgment previously entered in a 2018 lawsuit brought by Steven Bryan against Charles Lilley, a Connecticut State Marshal in Hartford County. The "motion" is another lengthy, disorganized, irrational and incoherent listing of U.S. Supreme Court decisions, public acts, statutes, and religious invocations.

The application was denied by the court (Sheridan, J.) on the grounds that "the applicant has repeatedly filed actions with respect to the same or similar matters, such filings establish an extended pattern of frivolous filings that have been without merit, the application sought is in connection with an action before the court that is consistent with the applicant’s previous pattern of frivolous filings, and the granting of such application would constitute a flagrant misuse of Judicial Branch resources." The court also made a marginal notation that "Previous judgment of nonsuit entered 10/10/18. Four different fee waivers filed since that date for the same matter." and "ORDERED: The Clerk shall accept no more filings related to this case."

The court takes judicial notice of the proceedings in Steven O. Bryan v. Charles J. Lilley, HHDCV185051479S. In that case the complaint appears to allege improper or defective service of a personal injury writ by Marshal Lilley. On October 10, 2018, a nonsuit was entered against the plaintiff for failure to appear at a pre-trial conference. A subsequent motion to open (a fee waiver was granted) was denied. Several motions to reargue were also denied. The court also takes notice that Mr. Bryan made three more applications for a fee waiver on March 1, 2019, March 15, 2019 and May 1, 2019, all in connection with a motion to open the nonsuit. All three applications were denied.

The present "motion to reopen" simply replicates the allegations of the March 14, 2018 Complaint in HHDCV185051479S.

On the basis of these findings, the court denies the appeal, since the application is consistent with the applicant’s previous pattern of frivolous filings and the granting of the application would clearly "constitute a flagrant misuse of Judicial Branch resources" within the meaning of General Statutes § 52-259b(c).

C. Application dated October 28, 2019, "Steven Bryan v. Heather Smith & Yvonne Jordan Transportation "

This application seeks a waiver of filing fees and service fees for a "civil case." Attached to the application is a summons naming "Heather Smith," "Yvonne Jordan" and "Yvonne Jordan Transportation" as defendants, along with a 19-page "Complaint/Affidavit Violation My Equail [sic.] Rights and Justice." The document duplicates much of the rambling and illogical text seen in previous applications.^[1] But the text does not in any way explain what "Yvonne Jordan Transportation" has to do with Steven Bryan and what "Heather Smith" (elsewhere identified as a "Manager" at "Autumn Transportation") has to do with "Yvonne Jordan Transportation." Apparently, "Jordan Transportation, LLC" was somehow involved in the CHRO case with Heather Smith, which was investigated (much to Mr. Bryan’s dissatisfaction) by a Ms. Ann Galer.

The application was denied by the court (Sheridan, J.) on the grounds that "the applicant has repeatedly filed actions with respect to the same or similar matters, such filings establish an extended pattern of frivolous filings that have been without merit, the application sought is in connection with an action before the court that is consistent with the applicant’s previous pattern of frivolous filings, and the granting of such application would constitute a flagrant misuse of Judicial Branch resources." The court also made a marginal notation that "The court has denied numerous prior filings with respect to this matter as frivolous" and "ORDERED: The Clerk shall accept no more filings related to this matter." (Emphasis in original.)

This present complaint is nothing more than a continuing obsessive effort to make a claim against Heather Smith for termination of employment in 2015. Why Mr. Bryan is now focused on "Yvonne Jordan" and "Yvonne Jordan Transportation" rather than ...