Alston v. Lantz
Plaintiff: Ira Alston
Defendant: Theresa Lantz
Case Number: 3:2012cv00147
Filed: January 31, 2012
Court: US District Court for the District of Connecticut
Office: New Haven Office
County: Tolland
Presiding Judge: Charles S. Haight
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff
RSS Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
July 28, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 165 RULING (see attached) GRANTING Plaintiff's 124 Motion to Serve Additional Interrogatories; GRANTING in part and DENYING in part Plaintiff's 125 Motion for Spoliation Sanctions; DENYING Plaintiff's 128 Motion to Consolidate; DENYI NG WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff's 137 Motion to Amend the Complaint; DENYING AS MOOT Plaintiff's 138 Rule 36(a)(3) Motion; DENYING Plaintiff's 153 Motion for Discovery Sanctions; and GRANTING, nunc pro tunc to the extent ne cessary, the following motions for extensions of time: 133 , 145 , 135 , 150 , 158 ; and DENYING AS MOOT certain Defendant's 161 motion for extension of time. The Court also sets the following revised SCHEDULING ORDER. All discovery sha ll be completed by September 26, 2016. Motions for Summary Judgment, if any, must be filed on or before October 3, 2016. Trial memoranda are due on November 3, 2016 or 45 days from the Court's ruling on any summary judgment motion, whichever is later. The case will be Trial Ready by December 5, 2016 or 30 days after the filing of the Trial Memoranda, whichever is later. Signed by Judge Charles S. Haight, Jr. on July 28, 2016. (White, B.)
June 9, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 154 INITIAL REVIEW ORDER (see attached) reviewing Plaintiff's Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915A. Signed by Judge Charles S. Haight, Jr. on June 9, 2016.(Overbey, C.)
February 11, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 123 RULING (see attached) DENYING Plaintiff's 86 Motion for Relief from Order; GRANTING Plaintiff's 94 Motion to Withdraw; DENYING AS WITHDRAWN Plaintiff's 90 Motion for Courtesy Copy; GRANTING Plaintiff's 95 Motion for Joinde r of John Doe Defendants; DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff's 110 third Motion to Serve Additional Interrogatories; DENYING AS WITHDRAWN Plaintiff's 96 , 101 earlier Motions to Serve Additional Interrogatories; DENYING AS MOOT the pa rties' 97 , 111 , 113 requests to modify case deadlines; DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff's 112 Second Motion to Appoint Pro Bono Counsel; DENYING AS IMPROPERLY FILED AS A SEPARATE MOTION Plaintiff's 115 Supplemental Motion to Appoint Pro Bono Counsel; DENYING AS MOOT Plaintiff's 117 Motion for a Favorable Ruling; GRANTING Plaintiff's 114 Motion to Compel, and providing Plaintiff until February 26, 2016 to submit an affidavit documenting costs assoc iated with that motion; DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE both parties' 116 , 118 Motions for Sanctions; and DENYING AS MOOT Plaintiff's 121 Motion for Emergency Relief. The Court also sets the following SCHEDULING ORDER. All discovery shall be completed by April 1, 2016. Motions for Summary Judgment, if any, must be filed on or before May 2, 2016. Trial Memoranda are due on June 15, 2016 or 45 days from the Court's ruling on any summary judgment motion, whichever is later. The case will be Trial Ready by July 1, 2016 or 30 days after the filing of the Trial Memoranda, whichever is later. Signed by Judge Charles S. Haight, Jr. on February 11, 2016. (White, B.)
July 23, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 82 RULING (see attached) DENYING in large part, and GRANTING in small part, Defendants' 72 Motion to Dismiss in their Individual Capacities; DENYING Plaintiff's 70 Motion for Order; DENYING Plaintiff's 71 Motion for Reconsideration; DENYING Defendants' 73 Motion for Protective Order; DENYING, without prejudice to refiling, Plaintiff's 80 and 81 Motions to Appoint Counsel; and GRANTING Plaintiff's 69 Motion to Compel Discovery. Defendants shall serve answe rs to Plaintiff's August 4, 2014 interrogatories by not later than August 24, 2015. Also on or before August 24, 2015, Plaintiff may file and serve an affidavit of his expenses incurred in filing the motion to compel (that is, exp enses incurred in connection with Doc. 69 , only). Within fourteen days of service of that affidavit, Defendants may file and serve a response stating why their failure to respond to Plaintiff's interrogatories should not result in the sanctions prescribed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A). In light of the meandering and dawdling course of this litigation to date, a new SCHEDULING ORDER is set as follows: All discovery shall be completed by September 1, 2015. Motions for summar y judgment may filed on or before October 1, 2015. Trial memoranda will be filed within 45 days from the Court's Ruling on any motion for summary judgment, or if no such motion is filed, by November 2, 2015. The case will be trial ready by December 1, 2015, or within 30 days after the filing of the trial memoranda, whichever is later. Signed by Judge Charles S. Haight, Jr. on July 23, 2015. (Pylman, J.)
February 21, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 42 ORDER (see attached) - For the reasoning articulated in its January 16, 2014 Order, the Court does not and will not consider Lieutenants Ramos, Saylor, or Bellerose to be defendants under Plaintiff's September 24, 2012 Amended Complaint, i.e., t he operative complaint in this action. However, the Court GRANTS 40 Plaintiff motion to receive additional time in which to file a proposed Second Amended Complaint which includes these three individuals as defendants in its case caption, and whic h thereby makes them parties within this matter. Plaintiff shall file any such proposed Second Amended Complaint on or before Friday, March 21, 2014. The Court sees no reason why Defendants would require an additional extension of time in which to respond to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, particularly as Defendants' counsel has represented that he had substantially completed a motion to dismiss concerning claims contained within the applicable Amended Complaint. Such claims will not change or be altered as to current Defendants should any proposed Second Amended Complaint, if filed, become the operative complaint in this matter; therefore the Court can discern no prejudice from requiring those Defendants currently in this actio n to file a response to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. Doing so would enable the case to proceed with respect to the currently existing claims. Accordingly, 41 Defendants' motion for extension of time is DENIED. Defendants are directed to file their response to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint on or before Friday, February 28, 2014. Signed by Judge Charles S. Haight, Jr on 2/21/14. (Hornstein, A)
November 7, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 35 ORDER (see attached) - granting 28 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration. Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration is GRANTED to the extent that Plaintiff may move to file an amended complaint if and when he has obtained sufficient service information for defendants C.O. Santiago, or C.T.O. Santiago, C.O. Pagan, and John Doe ##9-12. Signed by Judge Charles S. Haight, Jr. on 11/7/13. (Hornstein, A)
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: Alston v. Lantz
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Ira Alston
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: Theresa Lantz
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?