Richter v. Connecticut Judicial Branch

ELIZABETH A. RICHTER, Plaintiff, v. THE CONNECTICUT JUDICIAL BRANCH, et al., Defendants.

Civil No. 3:12cv1638 (JBA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

March 27, 2014

RULING GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS

Plaintiff, Elizabeth A. Richter, filed an Amended Complaint [Doc. # 35] against the Connecticut Judicial Branch (the "Judicial Branch"), Judge Herbert Barall of the Superior Court (collectively the "State Defendants" or "State"), and a law firm that formerly represented her, O'Connell, Attmore, and Morris, LLC ("OAM"), alleging violations of her rights under the Americans With Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. 12131, et seq., § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794, and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, arising from her state court divorce and child-custody proceedings. Plaintiff claims (1) violations of her Fourteenth Amendment Due Process rights, Title II of the ADA and retaliation in violation of the ADA by the Judicial Branch (Count One) and Judge Barall in his individual and official capacity (Count Four), and violation of Title III of the ADA and retaliation in violation of the ADA by OAM (Count Three); (2) violation of the Rehabilitation Act by the Judicial Branch (Count Two); (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress by the Judicial Branch (Count Five), OAM (Count Six), and Judge Barall (Count Seven).

OAM moves [Doc. # 38] to dismiss the Amended Complaint for lack of standing and failure to state a claim, and the State Defendants move [Doc. # 45] to dismiss on thebasis that the relief sought is barred by the Eleventh Amendment; judicial immunity; the Rooker-Feldman doctrine; and failure to state a claim for relief. Plaintiff moves [Doc. # 50] to strike the State's memorandum in support and a number of its exhibits. For the reasons that follow, Defendants' motions are granted, and Plaintiff's motion is denied.

I. Facts Described in the Amended Complaint

Plaintiff filed for divorce in July 2006 in Connecticut Superior Court, and during the course of litigation her then-husband raised her "psychotic illness," based on events thirty years earlier, when she had been "misdiagnosed" and improperly hospitalized. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 18-19.) As a result, the Judicial Branch "has perceived the Plaintiff as having a psychiatric illness that she does not have." (Id. ¶ 21.) In addition, Plaintiff alleges that this discrimination on the basis of perceived disability has led to her developing "stress and anxiety" and "Legal Abuse Syndrome, a form of PTSD." (Id. ¶ 22.) Plaintiff developed these conditions "as a result of discrimination that [Richter] has experienced and continues to experience as a result of this misdiagnosis." (Id.)

Despite Richter's perceived and actual disabilities, during her divorce proceedings, "the Superior Court failed to inform her of her rights and protections under the ADA and proceeded to deny her access to those rights and protections from July 2006 up until December 2012." (Id. ¶ 25.) Due to her perceived disability, Richter "was denied the services of the trial court such as family relations, mediation, special masters, etc. and denied meaningful participation in pretrial hearings and trial court hearings." (Id. ¶ 35.) Richter alleges that she was "subjected to harassment and coercion in the form of long and drawn out proceedings" (id. ¶ 36), and "the Trial Court allowed a hostile atmosphereto dominate court proceedings . . . and consistently addressed her in a rude and hostile manner" (id. ¶ 40).

From September 2009 through December 2009, Richter made numerous verbal requests for "accommodation and protection from discrimination under the ADA" and filed motions "For a Referral to the ADA Coordinator" and for "Relief from ADA violations," but these requests and motions were ignored. (See id. ¶¶ 44-47.) On March 8, 2010, Richter filed a Request For Accommodation by Persons With Disabilities Form to the Judicial Branch, requesting "protection from discrimination based upon the perception that she has a mental illness," and "accommodations for the anxiety symptoms she experiences" as a result of this unwarranted perception. (Id. ¶ 49; see also Request for Accommodation Form, Ex. 8 to Defs.' Mot. to Dismiss.)

On March 19, 2010, Richter provided documentation from her psychiatrist, who recommended that the trial court allow Richter (1) "an assistant to review and clarify what has been said in court," (2) the opportunity "to take brief breaks," (3) "any other accommodations the ADA Coordinator might suggest," and (4) to "[c]onsult with a stigma expert regarding discrimination." (Id. ¶ 50.) On June 14, 2010, Richter's requests were denied. (Id. ¶ 51.) Richter submitted another request on August 19, 2010, which was also denied. (Id. ¶¶ 56-57.) On September 20, 2010, Richter filed a grievance appealing the denial of her requested accommodations. (Id. ¶ 59.) On November 9, 2010, Richter received a reply from the Grievance Committee, stating that the Judicial Branch was complying with her requests for accommodations, and had allowed Richter to be assisted "by an individual of your choice during hearings," but there was no record that Richter had done so. (Id. ¶ 62.) Richter responded that because "the hostilitydirected towards me in court is so great as a consequence of a discriminatory attitude, then that makes it difficult for me to even ask for such an accommodation[]," and that during a hearing before the trial court in August 2010 "she was denied a break even though she repeatedly requested one" and "even though her ADA Coach was allowed to sit next to the Plaintiff, he was not allowed to speak to her and explain what was being said as the Plaintiff had requested as part of her reasonable accommodations." (Id. ¶ 63.)

In a September 16, 2010 ruling, Judge Barall ruled against Richter and based his decision in part on a "custody evaluation," which "was hearsay, was considerably inaccurate, was not relevant to the issues before the trial court," and in doing so Judge Barall committed "an act of discrimination . . . based upon the perception of [Richter] as having a mental health disability she does not have." (Id. ¶ 72). Judge Barall's ruling referred to Richter's ADA coach as her "sexual partner," which was "an attempt to retaliate against the Plaintiff's ADA coach because of his support of the Plaintiff." (Id. ¶ 70.) In subsequent proceedings before Judge Barall, Richter "became temporarily disabled and entitled to reasonable accommodations . . . since she required surgery," and repeatedly requested a delay in hearings regarding a motion for attorney's fees, but Judge Barall "continued on to rule on Attorney's Fees without allowing her to have a hearing to which she is entitled under the 5th and 14th amendments to the constitution" and "documents were concealed." (Id. ¶ 73.)

During her appeal of multiple trial court orders,¹ Richter submitted requests for accommodation to the Appellate Court of Connecticut "asking for ADA protection against discrimination" in her appellate cases, but these requests were denied. (Id. ¶¶ 77-81.) The Appellate Court "then continued on to rule against the Plaintiff . . . without actually considering the issues raised on appeal, and in doing so clearly discriminating against the Plaintiff as a person with a disability." (Id. ¶ 81b.)

On December 7, 2012, before Plaintiff filed her Complaint with this Court, a Superior Court judge confirmed Plaintiff's "eligibility for ADA Accommodations and also approved all of the Plaintiff's requested accommodations." (Id. ¶ 82.) Shortly, thereafter Richter received additional confirmation of her eligibility for ADA accommodations, and the Judicial Branch "approved all of the Plaintiff's requested accommodations," which were "the very same accommodations that the Plaintiff was asking for in 2009." (Id. ¶ 82.)

Although the Judicial Branch has now agreed to provide Richter with the requested accommodations, court personnel had previously been "deliberately attempting to mislead the Plaintiff in regard to her rights." (Id. ¶ 83.) As a result, Richter "never received consistent, valid, or meaningful accommodations for her disability both in superior court and appellate court, and was thus deprived of both testamentary and participatory access to these courts." (Id. ¶ 85.) The rulings from the Superior Court and Appellate Court were "clearly discriminatory," such as a September 30, 2010 ruling that was "a gossipy rambling account of the case full of misleading and false information." (Id. ¶ 86.)

Richter also asserts claims against OAM, which formerly represented her in the divorce proceedings. In a April 2007 meeting with attorney James T. Flaherty, Richter "specifically reviewed the mental health issues in her case," but "Attorney Flaherty failed [to] provide any information regarding reasonable accommodation, and he failed to offer any reasonable accommodations which would have allowed her to obtain equal access to the services that he and his legal firm provides." (Id. ¶ 28.) Such reasonable accommodations would have included "additional time to hear, process, and respond to proposals that were brought before her for approval," but instead attorneys "insisted that if the Plaintiff did not act immediately, they would withdraw from her case." (Id. ¶ 29.) This "bullying and threatening . . . was a violation of the ADA prohibition against retaliation." (Id. ¶ 30.) On September 5, 2007 during a hearing on the firm's motion to withdraw from its representation, "Flaherty specifically attributed his decision to withdraw upon the plaintiff's mental health condition," but "there is no indication that at any time during the firms' representation of the plaintiff that he or any other member ofthe attorney firm offered any reasonable accommodations to . . . ensure effective communication with the Plaintiff or in order to ensure that their services were accessible to the Plaintiff." (Id. ¶...