Chien v. Dooley
| Connecticut District Court | |
| Judge: | Sarala V Nagala |
| Case #: | 3:25-cv-00713 |
| Nature of Suit | 440 Civil Rights - Other Civil Rights |
| Cause | No cause code entered |
| Case Filed: | May 02, 2025 |
| Last checked: Friday May 02, 2025 3:06 PM EDT |
|
Defendant
Kari A. Dooley
|
|
|
Plaintiff
Andrew Chien
Pro Se
665 Ellsworth A venue, CT 06511 |
| Docket last updated: 20 minutes ago |
| Tuesday, May 13, 2025 | ||
| 11 | 11
order
Order
Tue 05/13 5:57 PM
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Plaintiff shall respond as to why the complaint should not be dismissed for the reasons described below by May 27, 2025 . Should Plaintiff fail to respond to this order, the Court will dismiss this case. (1) Litigation Ban . In Chien v. Clark , 3:16-cv-01881 (AVC), Plaintiff had sued various defendants alleging violations of constitutional law and federal and state statutes stemming from a dispute with Richard Freer. See generally Clark , 3:16-cv-01881, ECF No. 1. The court, in dismissing the complaint, granted defendants' motion for sanctions and prohibited Plaintiff "from filing further actions in this court without leave of the court." Id. at ECF No. 40. Plaintiff later initiated the action Chien v. Jensen , 3:24-cv-01717 (KAD). There, the court noted that Jensen also arose out of Plaintiff's dispute with Freer. Jensen , 3:24-cv-01717, ECF No. 48 at 5 n.6 ("The prior case giving rise to the federal filing ban also arose out of Plaintiff's dispute with Freer... Although Defendants in this action do not appear to have been previously named in Plaintiff's onslaught of litigation, Freer's law firm LeClairRyan, was a named defendant and the claims brought here are certainly in the same vein."). The court ultimately rejected defendants' argument that Jensen should be dismissed pursuant to the litigation ban instituted in Clark , but only because Jensen was initially filed in state court and then removed. Id. The instant case directly challenges Judge Dooley's adjudication of Jensen , and, thus, appears to fall within the scope of the litigation ban instituted in Clark . Plaintiff's own allegations speak to this link. See, e.g. , ECF No.1 at para. 16 ("However, Case 3:24CV01717-(KAD) arose from Jensen's removal of a pending state court case, which is directly linked to Freer's ongoing debt collection activities."). Accordingly, Plaintiff shall show cause why this case should not be dismissed for his lack of obtaining leave of court before filing the complaint. (2) Judicial Immunity . "It is well settled that judges generally have absolute immunity from suits for money damages for their judicial actions." Bliven v. Hunt , 579 F.3d 204, 209 (2d Cir. 2009). Such immunity applies if the challenged action "is judicial in nature" and was "not taken in the complete absence of jurisdiction." Huminski v. Corsones , 396 F.3d 53, 75 (2d. Cir. 2005); see also Mireles v. Waco , 502 U.S. 9, 11-12 (1991) (per curiam) (holding immunity is overcome only where the judge's actions were not taken in the judge's judicial capacity or, even if judicial in nature, they were taken in the complete absence of all jurisdiction). Likewise, section 1983 explicitly prohibits issuance of injunctive relief against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in the judge's judicial capacity, "unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable." 42 U.S.C. s. 1983. All of the Plaintiff's claims and all of Plaintiff's requests for relief directly relate to Judge Dooley's adjudication of Chien v. Jensen , 3:24-cv-01717. While it is clear from the complaint that Plaintiff disagrees with Judge Dooley's decisions in Jensen , Plaintiff fails to allege how Judge Dooley's actions were "taken in the complete absence of jurisdiction," and fails to allege that "a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable." Accordingly, Plaintiff shall show cause why this case should not be dismissed pursuant to the judicial immunity doctrine. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 5/13/2025. (Lum, A) |
|
| Tuesday, May 06, 2025 | ||
| 10 | 10
order
Electronic Service Documents
Tue 05/06 4:20 PM
NOTICE TO COUNSEL/SELF-REPRESENTED PARTIES : Counsel or self-represented parties initiating or removing this action are responsible for serving all parties with attached documents and copies of1 Complaint filed by Andrew Chien,8 Standing Protective Order, 3 Notice re: Disclosure Statement,9 Notice of Option to Consent to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction,7 Electronic Filing Order,6 Order on Pretrial Deadlines Signed by Clerk on 5/6/2025.(Gaskins, A) |
|
| Monday, May 05, 2025 | ||
| 5 | 5
order
Order
Mon 05/05 1:15 PM
ORDER. The Court has received Plaintiff's filing fee for this action. Accordingly, Plaintiff may now proceed to service of the Complaint. The Court reminds Plaintiff that it is his responsibility to serve a summons and the operative complaint on Defendant, or request that Defendant waive service, and to file either proof of service or an executed waiver of service with the Court within seven days of receipt of such proof. See D. Conn. Local Rule 4(d). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), Defendant must be served or waive service by July 31, 2025 . If Plaintiff fails to file a proof of service showing that Defendant was served or has waived service by August 7, 2025 , this action will be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 4(m). Plaintiff is directed to review the District Court's Guide for Self-Represented Litigants, available at https://www.ctd.uscourts.gov/forms/guide-self-represented-litigants , which provides guidance regarding service and other matters. Plaintiff may also seek to consult with the Federal Pro Se Program attorney, who is reachable through https://law.qu.edu/academics/clinics-and-externships/federal-pro-se-legal-assistance-program/, for legal advice about this matter. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on May 5, 2025. (Bergeson, S) |
|
| 4 | 4
service
Electronic Summons Issued
Mon 05/05 10:57 AM
ELECTRONIC SUMMONS ISSUED in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 and LR 4 as to *Kari A. Dooley* with answer to complaint due within *21* days. *Andrew Chien* *665 Ellsworth Avenue* *New Haven, CT 06511*. (Freberg, B) |
|
|
utility
NEW Case Assignment
Mon 05/05 8:53 AM
CASE ASSIGNMENT: District Judge Sarala V. Nagala assigned to the case. If the District Judge issues an Order of Referral to a Magistrate Judge for any matter other than settlement, the matter will be referred to Magistrate Judge S. Dave Vatti. (Velez, F) |
||
| Friday, May 02, 2025 | ||
| 9 | 9
misc
Notice of Option to Consent to MJ Jurisdiction (intake)
Tue 05/06 4:19 PM
Notice of Option to Consent to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction. (Gaskins, A) |
|
| 8 | 8
order
Standing Protective Order (Intake)
Tue 05/06 4:18 PM
Standing Protective Order Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 5/2/2025.(Gaskins, A) |
|
| 7 | 7
order
Electronic Filing Order
Tue 05/06 4:17 PM
ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER FOR COUNSEL - PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 5/2/2025.(Gaskins, A) |
|
| 6 | 6
1
pgs
order
Order on Pretrial Deadlines
Tue 05/06 4:11 PM
Order on Pretrial Deadlines: Amended Pleadings due by 7/1/2025 Discovery due by 11/3/2025 Dispositive Motions due by 12/8/2025 Signed by Clerk on 5/2/2025.(Gaskins, A) |
|
| 3 | 3
notice
Notice re: Disclosure Statement
Fri 05/02 5:27 PM
Notice: Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1(b), a disclosure statement required under Rule 7.1(a) must be filed with a party's first appearance, pleading, petition, motion, response, or other request addressed to the Court and must be supplemented if any required information changes during the case. Signed by Clerk on 5/2/25.(Velez, F) |
|
| 2 | 2
motion
To Participate in Electronic Filing
Fri 05/02 3:56 PM
MOTION by Self-Represented Litigant to Participate in Electronic Filing, by Andrew Chien. (Velez, F) |
|
| 1 | 1
cmp
Complaint
Fri 05/02 3:39 PM
COMPLAINT against Kari A. Dooley, filed by Andrew Chien. (Velez, F) |
|
|
misc
Filing Fee Received
Fri 05/02 3:49 PM
Filing fee received from Andrew Chien: $ 405; receipt number 290765. (Velez, F) |
||
|
service
Request to Issue Summons
Fri 05/02 4:09 PM
Request for Clerk to issue summons as to Kari A. Dooley. (Velez, F) |
||