Oliphant v. Villano et al
| Anthony W. Oliphant |
| Robert Villano, Mark Sheppard, William Onofrio, Craig Appleby, Samperi, M. Sigmon, Thomas Wydra, Jane #1 Doe, Unnamed Defendants, Rhonda Marie Dixon, Marc Dixon, Anthony Dixon, Timothy Dixon, Dee Dixon, Max Joyner, M Davis, Howze, Smith, Robert Levy, James Dixon, New Haven Police Department, Hamden Police Department, James R. Turcotte, Richwine, Howard Scheinblum, John F. Blawie, Elpedio N. Vitale, Joseph Lamotta, Omar A. Williams, Brian K. Murphy, James Dzurenda, Jeffrey McGill, Fred Levesque and Morris |
| 3:2009cv00862 |
| June 1, 2009 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| New Haven Office |
| Fairfield |
| Janet Bond Arterton |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
| Both |
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
321
ORDER denying 314 Motion for Relief from Judgment; finding as moot 320 Motion for Clarification. Signed by Judge Victor A. Bolden on 9/8/2017. (Williams, C)
|
|
Filing
284
ORDER denying 283 Motion for Reconsideration re 283 MOTION for Reconsiderationof the Court's Ruling Regarding Defendants' Motion For Leave To Amend Their Affirmative Defenses filed by Robert Villano, Mark Sheppard, William Onofrio. Signed by Shira Scheindlin on 02/28/14. (Palmieri, A.)
|
|
Filing
254
ORDER: Defendant's Motion 231 to Dismiss is GRANTED. Rhonda Dixon's Motion 234 to join in her co-defendants' motion is also GRANTED. The Clerk is directed to remove Michael, Anthony, Timothy, and Rhonda Dixon from the case caption. The parties shall file their Joint Trial Memo by July 8, 2013. Signed by Judge Janet Bond Arterton on 06/04/2013. (Flagg, K.)
|
|
Filing
212
ORDER: New Haven Defendants' Motion 189 for Summary Judgment is GRANTED, and Hamden Defendants' Motion 196 for Summary Judgment is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Signed by Judge Janet Bond Arterton on 08/31/2012. (Flagg, K.)
|
|
Filing
151
ORDER: Hamden Defendants' Motion to Dismiss 113 is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part; New Haven Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 115 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part; Plaintiff's Motion to Amend 132 is GRANTED. Signed by Judge Janet Bond Arterton on 09/06/2011. (Flagg, K.)
|
|
Filing
109
AMENDED ORDER: Yale-New Haven Hospital is directed to comply with Plaintiff's Subpoena served on July 13, 2010 by January 26, 2011. Signed by Judge Janet Bond Arterton on 1/11/2011. (Kretman, J.)
|
|
Filing
102
ORDER: Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction 58 is DENIED, and his Motion for Ruling on Pending Motions 75 is DENIED AS MOOT. Vorcelia Oliphant's Motion for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief 80 and Motion for Leave to File a Reply 95 are DENIED AS MOOT. Plaintiff's Motion for a Status Conference 70 is GRANTED, and the telephonic status conference scheduled for December 8, 2010 is hereby rescheduled for December 17, 2010 at 10:00 a.m., and counsel for the State of Connecticut Defendants shall initiate the call to chambers at 2037732456. Ms. Oliphant may be telephonically present at the status conference as if it were being held in open court. Signed by Judge Janet Bond Arterton on 12/3/2010. (Kretman, J.)
|
|
Filing
100
RULING ON PENDING MOTIONS: denying 19 Motion to be Monitored by Court; denying 25 Motion for Reconsideration and Hearing ; Overruling 22 Objections to the Order; denying 26 Motion for Relief and Renewed Motion for Appointment of Counsel; deny ing as Moot 30 Motion for Reconsideration; denying as moot 33 Motion for Enforcement; denying 34 Motion from Relief from Retaliation and Motion to Appoint Counsel; denying 35 Motion for remedy and Relief and to stay the action; denying 43 M otion for Disclosure; denying 45 Motion for Order; denying 46 Motion to Disclose Records; denying without prejudice 46 , 84 , 87 , 91 Motions to Compel, for Sanctions and to Stay; denying 47 Motion for Copy; granting nunc pro tunc 48 , [4 9], 55 Motions for Extension of Time ; denying 52 and 53 Motions for Default Entry 55(a); granting 66 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply; denying 72 Motion for Declaratory Judgment; granting nunc pro tunc 73 and 74 Motions for Extension of Time; granting 79 Motion for Modification of Scheduling Order. Signed by Judge Janet Bond Arterton on 11/23/2010. (Kelsey, N.)
|
|
Filing
17
PRISCS - INITIAL REVIEW ORDER. denying 4 Motion to Appoint Counsel ; granting 7 Motion to Amend; granting 8 Motion for Order; granting 9 Motion for Order; denying 10 Motion for TRO; denying 10 Motion for Preliminary Injunction; denying [1 3] Motion for Equal Protection.The Pro Se Prisoner Litigation Office shall prepare the documents required for official capacity service of the complaint on all defendants and deliver them to the U.S. Marshal Service. The Pro Se office shall mail waiv er of service of process request packets to all defendants in his or her individual capacity at his or her current work address. The Pro Se Office shall send a courtesy copy of the complaint and this ruling and order to the Ct Attorney General and th e Dept of Correction Legal Affairs Unit. The Pro Se Office shall send a written notice to the plaintiff of the status of this action, along with a copy of this order. Answer due within 70 days. Discovery due within seven months, Dispositive Motions due within eight months. Signed by Judge Janet Bond Arterton on 2/11/10. (Corriette, M.)
|
|
Filing
16
ORDER: Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration 15 is denied. Signed by Judge Janet Bond Arterton on 01/25/10. (Kretman, J.)
|
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.
