Darazs v. Dzurenda et al
| Christopher Darazs |
| Dzurenda, Erfe, Mudano, Cogner, Gillette, Avery, Irizzary, Johnson, Lee, Jane Doe and John Doe |
| 3:2014cv01330 |
| September 12, 2014 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| New Haven Office |
| Fairfield |
| Janet C. Hall |
| Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
106
ORDER Following In Camera Review of Documents. See attached Order for details. Signed by Judge Sarah A. L. Merriam on 4/29/2016. (Kaczmarek, S.)
|
|
Filing
37
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER AND RULING denying as moot 27 Motion to Dismiss; denying as moot 29 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply ; denying without prejudice to renew at a later stage of the litigation re 30 Motion to Appoint Cou nsel ; denying for failure to comply with Local Rule 37 re 31 Motion to Compel; denying 32 First Motion to Amend/Correct; granting 33 Second Motion to Amend/Correct; denying 18 Motion for Extension of Time ; denying for failure to comply with Local Rule 37 re 19 Motion to Compel; denying 20 Motion for Default; denying 23 Motion for Extension of Time. Complaint against defendant Dzurenda are Dismissed. The Case against defendants Erfe, Mudano, Williams, Guillot, Surfus, Senita, Johnson, Iozzia, Dewaine, Turner, Servidio, Gingras, Evans and Quenneville On the Eight Amendment Claim will proceed. Signed by Judge Janet C. Hall on 6/24/2015. (Malone, P.)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Connecticut District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
