Collection |
United States Courts Opinions
|
SuDoc |
JU 4.15
|
Court Type |
District
|
Court Name |
United States District Court District of Connecticut
|
Circuit |
2nd
|
Office Location |
New Haven
|
Case Type |
civil
|
Parties
Name |
Scanning Program - MacDougall Walker
|
Role |
Correctional Center
|
|
Name |
Scanning Program - Northern
|
Role |
Correctional Center
|
|
Name |
Leo Arnone
|
Role |
Defendant
|
|
Name |
Bellerose
|
Role |
Defendant
|
|
Name |
Lashawn Cartwright
|
Role |
Defendant
|
|
Name |
Darren Chevalier
|
Role |
Defendant
|
|
Name |
Cieboter
|
Role |
Defendant
|
|
Name |
John Doe #11
|
Role |
Defendant
|
|
Name |
John Doe #12
|
Role |
Defendant
|
|
Name |
John Doe #2
|
Role |
Defendant
|
|
Name |
John Doe #4
|
Role |
Defendant
|
|
Name |
John Doe #5
|
Role |
Defendant
|
|
Name |
John Doe #6
|
Role |
Defendant
|
|
Name |
John Doe #7
|
Role |
Defendant
|
|
Name |
John Doe #8
|
Role |
Defendant
|
|
Name |
John Doe #9
|
Role |
Defendant
|
|
Name |
Steven Faucher
|
Role |
Defendant
|
|
Name |
Jose Fiak
|
Role |
Defendant
|
|
Name |
Richard Furey
|
Role |
Defendant
|
|
Name |
Paul Germond
|
Role |
Defendant
|
|
Name |
Hartley
|
Role |
Defendant
|
|
Name |
KIDD & COMPANY LLC
|
Role |
Defendant
|
|
Name |
Michael P. Lajoie
|
Role |
Defendant
|
|
Name |
Theresa Lantz
|
Role |
Defendant
|
|
Name |
Shannon Lawrence
|
Role |
Defendant
|
|
Name |
Darryl Little
|
Role |
Defendant
|
|
Name |
Dennis Oglesby
|
Role |
Defendant
|
|
Name |
Michael Pafumi
|
Role |
Defendant
|
|
Name |
Pagan
|
Role |
Defendant
|
|
Name |
Sarah Potter
|
Role |
Defendant
|
|
Name |
Prior
|
Role |
Defendant
|
|
Name |
Ramos
|
Role |
Defendant
|
|
Name |
Nigel Rodney
|
Role |
Defendant
|
|
Name |
Dave Roston
|
Role |
Defendant
|
|
Name |
Santiago
|
Role |
Defendant
|
|
Name |
Barbara Savoie
|
Role |
Defendant
|
|
Name |
Saylor
|
Role |
Defendant
|
|
Name |
Daniel Stewart
|
Role |
Defendant
|
|
Name |
Michael White
|
Role |
Defendant
|
|
Name |
Glenn Williams
|
Role |
Defendant
|
|
Name |
James DelPeschio
|
Role |
Defendant
|
|
Name |
John Doe #1
|
Role |
Defendant
|
|
Name |
John Doe #10
|
Role |
Defendant
|
|
Name |
John Doe #3
|
Role |
Defendant
|
|
Name |
Angel Quiros
|
Role |
Defendant
|
|
Name |
Ira Alston
|
Role |
Plaintiff
|
|
Opinions
Opinion ID |
USCOURTS-ctd-3_12-cv-00147-0
|
Date |
2013-11-07
|
Notes |
ORDER (see attached) - granting 28 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration. Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration is GRANTED to the extent that Plaintiff may move to file an amended complaint if and when he has obtained sufficient service information for defendants C.O. Santiago, or C.T.O. Santiago, C.O. Pagan, and John Doe ##9-12. Signed by Judge Charles S. Haight, Jr. on 11/7/13. (Hornstein, A)
|
View |
View File
|
|
Opinion ID |
USCOURTS-ctd-3_12-cv-00147-1
|
Date |
2014-02-21
|
Notes |
ORDER (see attached) - For the reasoning articulated in its January 16, 2014 Order, the Court does not and will not consider Lieutenants Ramos, Saylor, or Bellerose to be defendants under Plaintiff's September 24, 2012 Amended Complaint, i.e., the operative complaint in this action. However, the Court GRANTS 40 Plaintiff motion to receive additional time in which to file a proposed Second Amended Complaint which includes these three individuals as defendants in its case caption, and which thereby makes them parties within this matter. Plaintiff shall file any such proposed Second Amended Complaint on or before Friday, March 21, 2014. The Court sees no reason why Defendants would require an additional extension of time in which to respond to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, particularly as Defendants' counsel has represented that he had substantially completed a motion to dismiss concerning claims contained within the applicable Amended Complaint. Such claims will not change or be altered as to current Defendants should any proposed Second Amended Complaint, if filed, become the operative complaint in this matter; therefore the Court can discern no prejudice from requiring those Defendants currently in this action to file a response to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. Doing so would enable the case to proceed with respect to the currently existing claims. Accordingly, 41 Defendants' motion for extension of time is DENIED. Defendants are directed to file their response to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint on or before Friday, February 28, 2014. Signed by Judge Charles S. Haight, Jr on 2/21/14. (Hornstein, A)
|
View |
View File
|
|
Opinion ID |
USCOURTS-ctd-3_12-cv-00147-2
|
Date |
2015-07-23
|
Notes |
RULING (see attached) DENYING in large part, and GRANTING in small part, Defendants' 72 Motion to Dismiss in their Individual Capacities; DENYING Plaintiff's 70 Motion for Order; DENYING Plaintiff's 71 Motion for Reconsideration; DENYING Defendants' 73 Motion for Protective Order; DENYING, without prejudice to refiling, Plaintiff's 80 and 81 Motions to Appoint Counsel; and GRANTING Plaintiff's 69 Motion to Compel Discovery. Defendants shall serve answers to Plaintiff's August 4, 2014 interrogatories by not later than August 24, 2015. Also on or before August 24, 2015, Plaintiff may file and serve an affidavit of his expenses incurred in filing the motion to compel (that is, expenses incurred in connection with Doc. 69, only). Within fourteen days of service of that affidavit, Defendants may file and serve a response stating why their failure to respond to Plaintiff's interrogatories should not result in the sanctions prescribed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A). In light of the meandering and dawdling course of this litigation to date, a new SCHEDULING ORDER is set as follows: All discovery shall be completed by September 1, 2015. Motions for summary judgment may filed on or before October 1, 2015. Trial memoranda will be filed within 45 days from the Court's Ruling on any motion for summary judgment, or if no such motion is filed, by November 2, 2015. The case will be trial ready by December 1, 2015, or within 30 days after the filing of the trial memoranda, whichever is later. Signed by Judge Charles S. Haight, Jr. on July 23, 2015. (Pylman, J.)
|
View |
View File
|
|
Opinion ID |
USCOURTS-ctd-3_12-cv-00147-3
|
Date |
2016-02-11
|
Notes |
RULING (see attached) DENYING Plaintiff's 86 Motion for Relief from Order; GRANTING Plaintiff's 94 Motion to Withdraw; DENYING AS WITHDRAWN Plaintiff's 90 Motion for Courtesy Copy; GRANTING Plaintiff's 95 Motion for Joinder of John Doe Defendants; DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff's 110 third Motion to Serve Additional Interrogatories; DENYING AS WITHDRAWN Plaintiff's 96, 101 earlier Motions to Serve Additional Interrogatories; DENYING AS MOOT the parties' 97, 111, 113 requests to modify casedeadlines; DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff's 112 Second Motion to Appoint Pro Bono Counsel; DENYING AS IMPROPERLY FILED AS A SEPARATE MOTION Plaintiff's 115 Supplemental Motion to Appoint Pro Bono Counsel; DENYING AS MOOT Plaintiff's 117 Motion for a Favorable Ruling; GRANTING Plaintiff's 114 Motion to Compel, and providing Plaintiff until February 26, 2016 to submit an affidavit documenting costs associated with that motion; DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE both parties' 116, 118 Motions for Sanctions; and DENYING AS MOOT Plaintiff's 121 Motion for Emergency Relief. The Court also sets the following SCHEDULING ORDER. All discovery shall be completed by April 1, 2016. Motions for Summary Judgment, if any, must be filed on or before May 2, 2016. Trial Memoranda are due on June 15, 2016 or 45 days from the Court's ruling on any summary judgment motion, whichever is later. The case will be Trial Ready by July 1, 2016 or 30 days after the filing of the Trial Memoranda, whichever is later. Signed by Judge Charles S. Haight, Jr. on February 11, 2016. (White, B.)
|
View |
View File
|
|
Opinion ID |
USCOURTS-ctd-3_12-cv-00147-4
|
Date |
2016-06-09
|
Notes |
ENTERED IN ERROR - INITIAL REVIEW ORDER (see attached) reviewing Plaintiff's Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915A. Signed by Judge Charles S. Haight, Jr. on June 9, 2016.(Overbey, C.) Modified on 6/13/2016 to reflect that this was entered on the wrong case (Caffrey, A.).
|
View |
View File
|
|
Opinion ID |
USCOURTS-ctd-3_12-cv-00147-5
|
Date |
2016-07-28
|
Notes |
RULING (see attached) GRANTING Plaintiff's 124 Motion to Serve Additional Interrogatories; GRANTING in part and DENYING in part Plaintiff's 125 Motion for Spoliation Sanctions; DENYING Plaintiff's 128 Motion to Consolidate; DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff's 137 Motion to Amend the Complaint; DENYING AS MOOT Plaintiff's 138 Rule 36(a)(3) Motion; DENYING Plaintiff's 153 Motion for Discovery Sanctions; and GRANTING, nunc pro tunc to the extent necessary, the following motions for extensions oftime: 133, 145, 135, 150, 158; and DENYING AS MOOT certain Defendant's 161 motion for extension of time. The Court also sets the following revised SCHEDULING ORDER. All discovery shall be completed by September 26, 2016. Motions for Summary Judgment, if any, must be filed on or before October 3, 2016. Trial memoranda are due on November 3, 2016 or 45 days from the Court's ruling on any summary judgment motion, whichever is later. The case will be Trial Ready by December 5, 2016 or 30 days after the filing of the Trial Memoranda, whichever is later. Signed by Judge Charles S. Haight, Jr. on July 28, 2016. (White, B.)
|
View |
View File
|
|
|
Collection |
United States Courts Opinions
|
SuDoc |
JU 4.15
|
Court Type |
District
|
Court Name |
United States District Court District of Connecticut
|
Circuit |
2nd
|
Office Location |
New Haven
|
Case Type |
civil
|
Parties
Name |
Scanning Program - Northern
|
Role |
Correctional Center
|
|
Name |
Scanning Program - Osborn
|
Role |
Correctional Center
|
|
Name |
Boudreau
|
Role |
Defendant
|
|
Name |
Bujnicki
|
Role |
Defendant
|
|
Name |
Caron
|
Role |
Defendant
|
|
Name |
Edurko
|
Role |
Defendant
|
|
Name |
Gamdine
|
Role |
Defendant
|
|
Name |
Jasion
|
Role |
Defendant
|
|
Name |
KIDD & COMPANY LLC
|
Role |
Defendant
|
|
Name |
MCCARTHY & COMPANY, LLC
|
Role |
Defendant
|
|
Name |
Piscottano
|
Role |
Defendant
|
|
Name |
Porylo
|
Role |
Defendant
|
|
Name |
Titus
|
Role |
Defendant
|
|
Name |
TUTTLE INC.
|
Role |
Defendant
|
|
Name |
Velmon Braswell
|
Role |
Plaintiff
|
|
Opinions
Opinion ID |
USCOURTS-ctd-3_16-cv-01431-0
|
Date |
2016-12-27
|
Notes |
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER: For the reasons stated in the attached ruling, the Court enters the following orders: 1. Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment due process (excessive force) claim and equal protection claim may proceed. Plaintiff's First Amendment retaliation claim is dismissed without prejudice to plaintiff filing an amended complaint within 30 days if he is able to allege facts to sustain plausible grounds for relief. Plaintiff's remaining claims under the Fourth, Fifth, and Eighth Amendment are dismissed with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). 2. The Clerk shall verify the current work addresses ofthe defendants with the Department of Correction Office of Legal Affairs, mail a waiver of service of process request packet to each defendant at the confirmed address within twenty-one (21) days of this Order, and report to the court on the status of the waiver request on the thirty-fifth (35) day after mailing. If any defendant fails to return the waiver request, the Clerk shall make arrangements for in-person service by the U.S. Marshals Service on the defendant in his or her individual capacity and the defendant shall be required to pay the costs of such service in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(d). 3. The Clerk shall send written notice to plaintiff of the status of this action, along with a copy of this Order. 4. The Clerk shall send a courtesy copy of the Complaint and this Ruling and Order to the Connecticut Attorney General and the Department of Correction Office of Legal Affairs. 5. Defendants shall file their response to the complaint, either an answer or motion to dismiss, within sixty (60) days from the date the waiver form is sent. If they choose to file an answer, they shall admit or deny the allegations and respond to the cognizable claims recited above. They also may include any and all additional defenses permitted by the Federal Rules. 6. Discovery, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 through 37, shall be completed within seven months (210 days) from the date of this order. Discovery requests need not be filed with the court. 7. All motions for summary judgment shall be filed within eight months (240 days) from the date of this order. 8. Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7(a), a nonmoving party must respond to a dispositive motion within twenty-one (21) days of the date the motion was filed. If no response is filed, or the response is not timely, the dispositive motion can be granted absent objection. 9. If plaintiff changes his address at any time during the litigation of this case, Local Court Rule 83.1(c)2 provides that the plaintiff MUST notify the court. Failure to doso can result in the dismissal of the case. Plaintiff must give notice of a new address even if he is incarcerated. Plaintiff should write PLEASE NOTE MY NEW ADDRESS on the notice. It is not enough to just put the new address on a letter without indicating that it is a new address. If plaintiff has more than one pending case, he should indicate all of the case numbers in the notification of change of address. Plaintiff should also notify the defendant or the attorney for the defendant of his new address. 10. Plaintiff shall utilize the Prisoner Efiling Program when filing documents with the court. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 12/27/2016. (Townsend, D.)
|
View |
View File
|
|
Opinion ID |
USCOURTS-ctd-3_16-cv-01431-1
|
Date |
2018-03-13
|
Notes |
RULING ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL. For the reasons stated in the attached ruling, plaintiff's Motion to Compel (Doc. #108) is DENIED in large part and GRANTED in part solely as to the first three requests with respect to the court trip of November 18, 2016.It is so ordered.Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 3/13/2018. (Lombard, N.)
|
View |
View File
|
|
|