| 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 |
criminal
|
Parties
| Name |
Cornelio Rogas Acevedo
|
| Role |
Defendant
|
|
| Name |
Marcus Anderson
|
| Role |
Defendant
|
|
| Name |
Kenneth Anthony
|
| Role |
Defendant
|
|
| Name |
Anthony McCurvin
|
| Role |
Defendant
|
|
| Name |
Antoinette Glenn
|
| Role |
Defendant
|
|
| Name |
B & A COMPANY, INC.
|
| Role |
Defendant
|
|
| Name |
Babus
|
| Role |
Defendant
|
|
| Name |
Ronald Bellamy
|
| Role |
Defendant
|
|
| Name |
Big Earl
|
| Role |
Defendant
|
|
| Name |
Boo Boo
|
| Role |
Defendant
|
|
| Name |
Zedrick Bozemon
|
| Role |
Defendant
|
|
| Name |
Dennis Braithwaite
|
| Role |
Defendant
|
|
| Name |
Denis Chriss Brown
|
| Role |
Defendant
|
|
| Name |
Bub
|
| Role |
Defendant
|
|
| Name |
Leopol Dina Cabrera
|
| Role |
Defendant
|
|
| Name |
Den Den
|
| Role |
Defendant
|
|
| Name |
Thomas Ellis
|
| Role |
Defendant
|
|
| Name |
Timothy Gainey
|
| Role |
Defendant
|
|
| Name |
JIMMY L.L.C.
|
| Role |
Defendant
|
|
| Name |
Dennis Johnson
|
| Role |
Defendant
|
|
| Name |
Vastie Jones
|
| Role |
Defendant
|
|
| Name |
Andrew Knight
|
| Role |
Defendant
|
|
| Name |
Earl Knight
|
| Role |
Defendant
|
|
| Name |
James Lang
|
| Role |
Defendant
|
|
| Name |
Landis, LLC
|
| Role |
Defendant
|
|
| Name |
ROBERT MARTIN COMPANY, LLC
|
| Role |
Defendant
|
|
| Name |
Andrew McCurvin
|
| Role |
Defendant
|
|
| Name |
Antoinette McCurvin
|
| Role |
Defendant
|
|
| Name |
Mikey
|
| Role |
Defendant
|
|
| Name |
Darrell Miles
|
| Role |
Defendant
|
|
| Name |
Reginald Miles
|
| Role |
Defendant
|
|
| Name |
Money Mike
|
| Role |
Defendant
|
|
| Name |
Monkey
|
| Role |
Defendant
|
|
| Name |
Oley
|
| Role |
Defendant
|
|
| Name |
Vincent Phillips
|
| Role |
Defendant
|
|
| Name |
Vinny Phillips
|
| Role |
Defendant
|
|
| Name |
PIRATE, LLC
|
| Role |
Defendant
|
|
| Name |
Red
|
| Role |
Defendant
|
|
| Name |
Daniel Rutherford
|
| Role |
Defendant
|
|
| Name |
Nelson Santana
|
| Role |
Defendant
|
|
| Name |
Arline Santiago
|
| Role |
Defendant
|
|
| Name |
Eric Seymour
|
| Role |
Defendant
|
|
| Name |
Shabba
|
| Role |
Defendant
|
|
| Name |
Silky
|
| Role |
Defendant
|
|
| Name |
Smiley LLC
|
| Role |
Defendant
|
|
| Name |
Raymond Richard Stephenson
|
| Role |
Defendant
|
|
| Name |
Timmy
|
| Role |
Defendant
|
|
| Name |
Michael Tolson
|
| Role |
Defendant
|
|
| Name |
Richard Whitfield
|
| Role |
Defendant
|
|
| Name |
WILEY, INC.
|
| Role |
Defendant
|
|
| Name |
Lisa Williams
|
| Role |
Defendant
|
|
| Name |
Michael Williams
|
| Role |
Defendant
|
|
| Name |
Michael Wright
|
| Role |
Defendant
|
|
| Name |
US Court of Appeals
|
| Role |
Interested Party
|
|
| Name |
USA
|
| Role |
Plaintiff
|
|
Opinions
| Opinion ID |
USCOURTS-ctd-3_93-cr-00157-0
|
| Date |
2007-09-26
|
| Notes |
RULING as to Raymond Richard Stephenson denying 1046 Motion to Vacate 2255, Signed by Judge Alfred V. Covello on 9/26/07. (Blue, A.)
|
| 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 - Cheshire
|
| Role |
Correctional Center
|
|
| Name |
Scanning Program - Garner
|
| Role |
Correctional Center
|
|
| Name |
Scanning Program - MacDougall Walker
|
| Role |
Correctional Center
|
|
| Name |
BETANCES, LLC
|
| Role |
Defendant
|
|
| Name |
Giuliana Mudano
|
| Role |
Defendant
|
|
| Name |
PARSONS, LLC
|
| Role |
Defendant
|
|
| Name |
Smiley LLC
|
| Role |
Defendant
|
|
| Name |
Vargas LLC
|
| Role |
Defendant
|
|
| Name |
Christopher Shand
|
| Role |
Plaintiff
|
|
| Name |
Scanning Program - Corrigan Radgowski
|
| Role |
Correctional Center
|
|
Opinions
| Opinion ID |
USCOURTS-ctd-3_20-cv-00028-0
|
| Date |
2020-04-27
|
| Notes |
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER (see attached). The Court has reviewed Plaintiff's 1 Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and concludes that Plaintiff has failed to state plausible claims that Defendants violated Plaintiff's First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment rights under the United States Constitution. Accordingly, Plaintiff's 1 Complaint is DISMISSED. If Plaintiff believes he can allege facts to cure the deficiencies identified in this Ruling, he may file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days from the date of this Order--i.e., by May 27, 2020. Failure to file an amended complaint within that time frame will result in dismissal of this action. Signed by Judge Charles S. Haight, Jr. on April 27, 2020. (Gitlin, A.) Modified text on 4/27/2020 (Barry, Donna).
|
| View |
View File
|
|
| Opinion ID |
USCOURTS-ctd-3_20-cv-00028-1
|
| Date |
2022-07-28
|
| Notes |
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER (see attached). Based on the Court's review of Plaintiff's 17 Amended Complaint, the Court sets forth the following conclusions and orders: (1) The Court permits (a) Plaintiff's First Amendment retaliation claims for damages to proceed against Correction Officers Parsons, Vargas, and Smiley in their individual capacities, and (b) Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment due process claims for damages to proceed against Correction Officers Parsons, Vargas, and Smiley; Lieutenant Betances; and District Administrator Giuliana Mudano in their individual capacities. All other claims, including Plaintiff's requests for damages against Defendants in their individual capacities, as well as for declaratory and injunctive relief, are DISMISSED. (2) The clerk shall verify the current work addresses for Correction Officers Parsons, Vargas, and Smiley; Lieutenant Betances; and District Administrator Giuliana Mudano with the DOC Office of Legal Affairs, mail a waiver of service of process request packet containing the amended complaint and this order to them at their confirmed addresses within twenty-one days of this order, and report on the status of the waiver request on the thirty-fifth day after mailing. If any Defendant fails to return the waiver request, the clerk shall make arrangements for in-person individual capacity service by the U.S. Marshals Service on that Defendant, and that 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 a courtesy copy of the amended complaint and this order to the DOC Office of Legal Affairs and the Office of the Attorney General. (4) Defendants shall file their response or responses to the amended complaint, either an answer or motion to dismiss, within sixty days from the date the notice of lawsuit and waiver of service of summons forms are mailed to them. If Defendants choose to file an answer or answers, Defendants shall admit or deny the allegations and respond to the cognizable claims recited above. Defendants may also include any and all additional defenses permitted by the Federal Rules. (5) Discovery, according to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26-37, shall be completed within six months (180 days) from the date of this order. Discovery requests need not be filed with the Court. (6) The parties must comply with the District of Connecticut "Standing Order Re: Initial Discovery Disclosures," which will be sent to both parties by the Court. The Order can also be found at http://ctd.uscourts.gov/administrative-standing-orders. (7) All motions for summary judgment shall be filed within seven months (210 days) from the date of this order. (8) According to Local Civil Rule 7(a), a nonmoving party must respond to a dispositive motion within twenty-one 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 he MUST notify the court. Failure to do so can result in the dismissal of the case. Plaintiff must give notice of a new address even if he is incarcerated. He should write "PLEASE NOTE MY NEW ADDRESS" on the notice. It is not enough to 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. He should also notify Defendants or defense counsel of his new address. (10) Local Court rules provide that discovery requests are not filed with the Court. D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 5(f). Therefore, discovery requests must be served on Defendants' counsel by regular mail. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Charles S. Haight, Jr. on July 28, 2022. (Eubank, J.)
|
| View |
View File
|
|
|
