Marchand v. Simonson et al
| Gregg Marchand |
| Willimantic Police Dept. and Erik Simonson |
| 3:2011cv00348 |
| March 7, 2011 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| New Haven Office |
| Windham |
| Joan G. Margolis |
| Charles S. Haight |
| Other 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
209
ORDER denying 187 Motion to Amend/Correct. Before the Court is plaintiffs Motion to Amend the Complaint [Rec. Doc. 187]. Plaintiff seeks to amend his complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) in order to add a Monell claim against the Town of Windham based on an unconstitutional taser use policy. Plaintiffs Motion is denied. READ ATTACHED ORDER FOR DETAILS. Signed by Judge Tucker L. Melancon on 6/14/2014. (Sherer-Kohlburn, S)
|
|
Filing
184
ORDER. Before the Court are defendants Motion for Summary Judgment [Rec. Doc. 167], requesting summary judgment on all of plaintiff's claims, and plaintiffs opposition thereto [Rec. Doc. 170]. the Motion will be GRANTED in part and DENIED in pa rt. The Motion will be granted on plaintiffs claims, or attempted claims (1) against the Municipal Defendants, for any and all Monell claims; and (2) against officer Erik Simonson for Fourth Amendment false arrest, Fourth Amendment illegal entry, Fou rteenth Amendment Substantive Due Process violation, state law harassment, and Fifth Amendment Miranda violation, the foregoing claims to be dismissed with prejudice. The Motion will be denied on plaintiffs claims of Fourth Amendment excessive force, brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and Connecticut state law trespass. SEE ENTRY FOR DETAILS. Signed by Judge Tucker L. Melancon on 4/28/2014. (Sherer-Kohlburn, S)
|
|
Filing
147
ORDER (see attached) - Plaintiff is entitled to further discovery with respect to the questions discussed in this Ruling and any other questions related to the taser gun and the preservation of evidence generated by the gun camera during the incident in suit. That discovery may consist of depositions pursuant to Rule 30, Fed. R. Civ. P.; interrogatories pursuant to Rule 33; requests for admission pursuant to Rule 36; and a visit to the Willimantic Police Department facilities in the manner desc ribed in Paragraph 2 of this Order. If such a meeting takes place, counsel for the parties are directed to inform the Court's Chambers of the date and time, so that the Court may deal on the telephone with any disputes or differences that may a rise as the process goes forward (although that should not occur). If Plaintiff decides to rely upon and present to the trial court the opinions of his expert, Mr. Sanderson, or any other expert, Plaintiff must comply fully with the provisions of Rul e 26(b)(4). With respect to Defendants' motion 130 to preclude Plaintiff's expert, Sanderson, from testifying at the special hearing conducted by this Court on November 6, 2013, and at any trial; or, in the alternative, to be deposed un der Rule 26: given the provisions of this Ruling, Plaintiff's motion to preclude or compel is DENIED AS MOOT with respect to Sanderson's testifying before or during the special hearing before this Court, which has now been concluded; furth er, as for Plaintiff's motion to preclude Sanderson from testifying as a trial witness or to submit to discovery under Rule 26(b)(4) prior to trial, the motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to a later motion for that relief that Defendants may be advised to make to Judge Melancon as the trial judge. Signed by Judge Charles S. Haight, Jr. on 12/30/13. (Hornstein, A)
|
|
Filing
121
RULING (see attached) granting 118 & 120 Defendants' Motions to Continue Hearing and denying 119 Defendants' Motion to Preclude Plaintiff's Expert, Robert Sanderson. Accordingly, the Special Hearing before Judge Ha ight will resume with respect to the testimony of witnesses Henry Minor and Ian Brown on Thursday, August 29, 2013, at 10:00 am in the 17th Floor Courtroom, 157 Church Street, New Haven, Connecticut 06510. All other witnesses will testify as scheduled on August 21, 2013 at 10:30 am. Signed by Judge Charles S. Haight, Jr. on August 20, 2013. (Dorais, L.)
|
|
Filing
102
RULING (see attached) denying as moot 93 and 94 Plaintiff's Motions for Court Orders, in light of the hearing scheduled for June 25-26, 2013, pursuant to the Court's prior 97 Order; and granting 101 Plaintiff's Motion for Court Order for leave to serve subpoena upon the Tazer Corporation. Signed by Judge Charles S. Haight, Jr. on May 6, 2013. (Dorais, L.)
|
|
Filing
64
ORDER Regarding Request for Special Hearing: See attached Order. The Court will consider 53 Plaintiff's Request for Special Hearing if he submits the affidavit described in the Order no later than August 28, 2012. Signed by Judge Charles S. Haight, Jr on August 14, 2012. (Caldwell, M.)
|
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.
