Opinion
CIVIL CASE NO. 3:14-CV-92(JCH)
03-23-2015
LUIS ANGEL LEBRON, Plaintiff, v. LEO C. ARNONE, et al., Defendants.
RULING ON MOTION FOR WRIT OF ERROR
The plaintiff, Luis Angel Lebron, is incarcerated at Osborn Correctional Institution in Somers, Connecticut. The plaintiff filed this action pro se pursuant 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against defendants Arnone, Brighthaupt, Powers and John and Jane Does.
The plaintiff asserted that he had filed another civil rights action in this court in November 2006, Lebron v. Murphy, et al., Case No. 3:06cv1849 (HBF). On June 14, 2011, the parties agreed to settle the case. On September 14, 2011, the court entered an order administratively closing the file based on the parties' report that the case had been settled. The case has remained closed since that date.
The plaintiff claimed that former Commissioner Arnone, Warden Brighthaupt and Deputy Warden Powers failed to fully comply with the terms of the settlement agreement reached in Lebron v. Murphy in numerous ways. On October 10, 2014, the court dismissed the Complaint filed in this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). The Clerk entered Judgment for the defendants on October 21, 2014.
On October 29, 2014, the plaintiff filed a letter seeking reconsideration of the court's Order dismissing the Complaint. On December 15, 2014, the plaintiff filed a second Motion for Reconsideration. On January 8, 2015, the court granted the first Motion for Reconsideration, but after review, affirmed its Order dismissing the Complaint. On February 2, 2015, the court denied the second Motion for Reconsideration as untimely and noted that, even if it were timely filed, it did not raise any new arguments.
The plaintiff has now filed a motion entitled "Motion for Writ of Error." The plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the court's ruling denying his second Motion for Reconsideration. The plaintiff disagrees with the court's ruling and the court's dismissal of his complaint, but does not present any new arguments. Instead, he reiterates the same arguments he raised in his first and second motions for reconsideration. The Motion for Writ of Error which seeks reconsideration of the Ruling denying the second Motion for Reconsideration is denied.
CONCLUSION
The Motion for Writ of Error (Doc. No. 11) is DENIED. If the plaintiff chooses to appeal this decision, he may not do so in forma pauperis because such an appeal would not be taken in good faith. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). If the Clerk did not already mail the plaintiff appeal forms at the time Judgment entered for the defendants, she shall mail the plaintiff Appeal forms with a copy of this order.
Although the court has ruled that, if the plaintiff chooses to appeal he would not be permitted to do so in forma pauperis because such an appeal would not be taken in good faith, he is not precluded from filing an appeal. See Cruz v. Hauck, 404 U.S. 59, 62 (1971) (if district court certifies that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, "then an indigent may ask the court of appeals for permission to proceed in forma pauperis); Rule 24(a)(5), Fed. R. App. P.
SO ORDERED.
Dated at New Haven, Connecticut, this 23rd day of March, 2015.
/s/ Janet C. Hall
Janet C. Hall
United States District Judge