Leftridge v. Connecticut Judicial Branch

1

VERNON J. LEFTRIDGE, JR., Plaintiff, v. STATE OF CONNECTICUT JUDICIAL BRANCH et al., Defendants.

No. 3:22-cv-411 (JAM)

United States District Court, D. Connecticut

June 30, 2023

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS

Jeffrey Alker Meyer United States District Judge

The plaintiff has filed a complaint pro se and in forma pauperis against the Connecticut Department of Social Services, the Connecticut Judicial Branch, several state court employees, state prosecutors, and other state employees for actions relating to the plaintiff's various child support and child custody cases. For the reasons set forth below, I will grant the defendants' motions to dismiss.

Background

The complaint spans 97 pages-not including 226 pages of exhibits-and numbers 361 paragraphs.^[1] Here I recite only those alleged facts that appear relevant to this ruling and I assume these alleged facts to be true solely for purposes of this ruling.

Plaintiff Vernon J. Leftridge is a disabled African American and Native American male.^[2]Leftridge has a minor child, R.L., who resides in Maryland, and an adult child, Juwan James Leftridge (“Juwan”), who resides in Maine.^[3] His claims in this case revolve around custody and child support orders entered by the state courts of Connecticut and Maryland.

In 2005, Norwich Superior Court Judge Cynthia Sweinton awarded Leftridge primary custody of Juwan.^[4] At some point, David Gage Chief Clerk of New London and Norwich Judicial Districts along with Norwich Superior Court Deputy Chief Clerks Corinne McCarthy and Cara Parkinson, modified the court order to remove Leftridge's custody award and insert a $50 weekly child support requirement.^[5] Leftridge and his attorney were “victims of severe racial discrimination, harassment racism and unlawfully kicked out” of the Norwich Superior Courthouse by Gage and a Connecticut Assistant Attorney General.^[6] The Appellate Court of Connecticut later vacated and remanded Judge Sweinton's order on the ground that Leftridge had not been served with Connecticut's motion to modify the child support obligation.^[7] See Leftridge v. Wiggins, 44 A.3d 217, 220-21 (Conn. App. 2012).

Fast forward to 2017, when R.L.'s mother, Niambi Kafi Heyward filed a paternity and support petition in Maryland.^[8] Leftridge was not served with Heyward's petition and was not notified of the subsequent hearing.^[9] On the date of the hearing, in which Connecticut Assistant Attorney General Andrea Gaines represented the State of Connecticut, Family Magistrate Judge David A. Dee ordered Heyward to file an amended petition.^[10] The Hartford Interstate Support Enforcement Supervisor removed the court order from the website of the State of Connecticut Judicial Branch (“Judicial Branch”).^[11]

In April 2018, Judge Dee entered a default order for retroactive child support without notifying Leftridge or Heyward.^[12] During the course of these proceedings, Gaines appeared ex parte before Judge Dee and made numerous misrepresentations.^[13] In August 2018, Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (“UIFSA”) Support Enforcement Supervisor Richard Julius falsely certified that Leftridge has been served with process in the Heyward action.^[14]

In January 2019, Leftridge asked Gaines for a copy of documents in the Heyward action, but Gaines refused and “became very hostile towards plaintiff in a racially motivated derogatory t[o]ne of voice.”^[15] Leftridge then filed a misconduct complaint against Gaines with the Connecticut Statewide Grievance Committee, which he followed up with two additional complaints against Gaines.^[16]

On May 9, 2019, Family Magistrate Judge Glady I. Nieves modified Leftridge's child support obligations and arrearage to zero because Leftridge became unable to work due to disability.^[17] Nieves ordered Gaines and Connecticut Assistant Attorney General Steven Samalot to produce documents relating to the child support proceedings pertaining to Juwan, but they did not do so.^[18] Leftridge subsequently served discovery requests on Heyward, who did not complete them because Gaines told her not to.^[19] Leftridge also alleges that Gaines and “unknown defendants she involved” “robbed [him] of his favorable May 9, 2019 court ruling.”^[20]

In September 2019, Family Court Clerk Cassandra Williams, Family Court Clerk Carolyn Anderson, and Gaines disclosed Leftridge's medical records to Judicial Branch employees.^[21] Family Court Clerk Manager Leanne Shaughnessy is Williams's and Anderson's supervisor.^[22] Leftridge filed requests for electronic access and for information relating to his court records, but the Judicial Branch and Williams denied them.^[23]

At a December 2019 hearing before Family Magistrate Judge Donald Green, Gaines, Anderson, and Williams made numerous misrepresentations, withheld documents, and refused to produce witness statements.^[24] Leftridge also alleges that Williams, Anderson, and unknown employees modified court records and that Gaines, Williams, and Anderson attempted to have Leftridge “arrested, prosecuted, and convicted” for not paying his child support.^[25] As a result of the hearing, the Connecticut Department of Social Services (“DSS”) reported Leftridge's credit information to credit reporting agencies.^[26] The day after the hearing, Judge Green's rulings at the hearing were vacated but Judge Nieves's modification of Leftridge's child support obligation to zero was not restored, which Leftridge alleges was because of “continued lies by [Connecticut Assistant Attorney General] Andrews and Anderson.”^[27]

In September 2021, Leftridge requested family court records from Child Support Specialist Alyson Saunders, an employee of the Maryland Department of Human Services, who denied his requests.^[28] In October 2021, Leftridge attended an appeals hearing before Judge Klau and alleges that Andrews once again made misrepresentations to the court.^[29] Later that month, Williams denied Leftridge's request for copies of court documents, and Judicial Branch Deputy Chief Clerk Rene L. Roberston returned his motion for review on the ground that it was premature.^[30] In April 2022, DSS refused to provide Leftridge with documents that form the basis of DSS's negative reports to credit bureaus.^[31] DSS also refused to alter the credit information that it reported to credit bureaus.^[32]

I previously entered an order to show cause explaining that Leftridge's original complaint did not comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure. This rule requires that pleadings contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief” and that “each allegation must be simple, concise, and direct.” See Leftridge v. Jud. Branch, 2022 WL 867543, at *2-3 (D. Conn. 2022) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2) and 8(d)(1)). I also noted that it was unclear whether Leftridge's original complaint complied with Rule 20's limits on permissive joinder of claims against multiple defendants. See id. at *3.

Now Leftridge has filed an amended complaint pro se and in forma pauperis alleging 26 claims against the following defendants: Assistant Attorney General for the Connecticut Office of the Attorney General Andrea Gaines, Assistant Attorney General Joan Andrews, Assistant Attorney General Steven Samalot, UIFSA Support Enforcement Supervisor Richard Julius, Family Court Clerk Carolyn Anderson, Family Court Clerk Cassandra Williams, Family Court Clerk Manager Leanne Shaughnessy, Maryland Department of Human Services Child Support Specialist Alyson Saunders, Chief Clerk of New London and Norwich Judicial Districts David Gage, “unknown employees,” the Connecticut Department of Social Services, and the State of Connecticut Judicial Branch.^[33] Leftridge names all but the last two defendants in their individual and official capacities.^[34] Counts One and Seventeen.

Leftridge alleges that the defendants deprived him of his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights as enforceable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.^[35]

Count Two.

Leftridge alleges that the defendants violated the common law by engaging in the spoliation of evidence.^[36]

Count Three. Leftridge alleges that the defendants engaged in witness tampering, manipulation of court records, and obstruction of court proceedings in violation of the United States Constitution and the Connecticut Constitution.^[37] Leftridge does not cite which provision of the United States Constitution the defendants violated, but I will presume that he alleges a violation of his due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment as enforceable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Count Four.

Leftridge alleges that the defendants discriminated against him on the basis of his gender and race in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-60 et seq .^[38]

Count Five.

Leftridge alleges that the defendants discriminated against him on the basis of disability in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.^[39]

Count Six.

Leftridge alleges that Shaughnessy engaged in negligent supervision of her employees Williams and Anderson.^[40] Count Seven.

Leftridge alleges that the Judicial Branch denied Leftridge access to public accommodation by denying him electronic access to the court system.^[41] Leftridge does not specify the statute the Judicial Branch violated, but I will presume that he alleges a violation of the ADA.

Count Eight.

Leftridge alleges that the Judicial Branch denied him equal protection under state law.^[42]

Count Nine.

Leftridge alleges that DSS denied him equal protection under the law violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (...