Prall v. Hartford Prosecutors et al
Plaintiff: Tormu E. Prall
Defendant: Hartford Prosecutors, Superior Court Judge and Dept of Corrections
Case Number: 3:2009cv01047
Filed: June 29, 2009
Court: US District Court for the District of Connecticut
Office: New Haven Office
County: Hartford
Presiding Judge: Janet Bond Arterton
Nature of Suit: None
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
September 16, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 73 ORDER: Plaintiff's Motion 39 for Summary Judgment is DENIED; Defendants' Motion 51 for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. Signed by Judge Janet Bond Arterton on 09/16/2011. (Budris, K.)
April 7, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 61 RULING AND ORDER denying 41 Motion to Compel; denying 41 Motion for Writ of Mandamus; granting 52 Motion to Quash; denying 56 Motion to Compel; granting 57 Motion to Quash; denying 58 Motion to Stay. Signed by Judge Joan G. Margolis on 4/7/11. (Corriette, M.)
April 22, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 28 ORDER denying 23 Motion to Amend; denying 23 Motion for Copy(s); denying 23 Motion to Expedite; denying 23 Motion ; denying 24 Motion to Amend; denying 25 Motion ; denying without prejudice 26 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Janet Bond Arterton on 4/22/10. (Corriette, M.)
April 1, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 22 PRISCS - RULING AND ORDER. Granting 20 to the extent that the clerk shall change plaintiff's address, denying 20 Motion for Copy(s); denying 20 Motion MOTION for free copy of all documents filed in case; MOTION to enforce the subpoenas. Signed by Judge Janet Bond Arterton on 3/30/10. (Corriette, M.)
December 17, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 12 PRISCS - INITIAL REVIEW ORDER denying 9 Motion for emergency relief. All claims against defendant Hartford Prosecutors as a state agency are DISMISSED. Plaintiff is directed to file a fourth amended complaint identifying by name and current work address the individuals he intends to sue within 20 days. Failure to do so will result in the dismissal of this case. Signed by Judge Janet Bond Arterton on 12/11/09. (Corriette, M.)
Access additional case information on PACER

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 this case: Prall v. Hartford Prosecutors et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Tormu E. Prall
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Hartford Prosecutors
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Superior Court Judge
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Dept of Corrections
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

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.


Why Is My Information Online?