Brown v. Correction et al
| Christopher Brown |
| Department of Correction, Scott Semple, Scott Erfe, Angel Quiros, Anne Cournoyer, Karl Lewis, David Maiga, William Mulligan, Scott O'Neill, Jacquelin Bachan, John Lafar, Brian Griggs, Mark Frayne and Gerard Gagne |
| 3:2016cv00376 |
| March 7, 2016 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| New Haven Office |
| Tolland |
| Michael P. Shea |
| Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| None |
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
193
CORRECTED RULING on 172 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Jacquelin Bachan, Edward Maldonaldo, Anne Cournoyer, David Maiga, Scott Erfe, Gerard Gagne, Karl Lewis, Jesse Johnson, Angel Quiros, William Longo, William Mulligan, Robles, Mark Frayne Signed by Magistrate Judge William I Garfinkel on 1/13/21.(Esposito, A.)
|
|
Filing
70
ORDER. For the reasons set forth in the attached, the Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 60] is GRANTED as to the Fourteenth Amendment equal protection/discrimination claim and DENIED in all other respects. The procedural due process claim asserted against defendants Griggs, Lewis, Semple, and Bachon in connection with the plaintiff's initial placement in the Administrative Segregation Program and the claims asserted in connection with a disciplinary report allegedly issued on November 3, 2013 ch arging the plaintiff with fighting and the claim seeking to challenge the plaintiffs alleged guilty plea to the disciplinary report charging him with assault on November 3, 2013 are DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). Thus, all claim s against defendant Griggs have been DISMISSED.The case proceeds as to the following claims in the Second Amended Complaint: the Eighth Amendment claim of deliberate indifference to the plaintiff's mental health needs against defendants Semple, Erfe, Cournoyer, Maldonado, Quiros, Mulligan, Robles, Johnson, Frayne, Gagne, and Longo in their individual capacities and in their official capacities to the extent that the plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, the Eighth Amendment claim of de liberate indifference to unconstitutional conditions of confinement against defendants Semple, Erfe, Cournoyer, Maldonado, Quiros, Mulligan, Robles, Johnson, Frayne, Gagne, and Longo in their individual capacities, the Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claim related to the plaintiffs continued confinement in administrative segregation without periodic reviews against defendants Semple, Erfe, Cournoyer, Mulligan, Lewis, Maiga, Bachon, Maldonado, Quiros, Robles, and Johnson in their indi vidual capacities, and the Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claim regarding the failure to hold proceedings of any kind in connection with the plaintiffs regression from phases two and three of the Administrative Segregation Program to pha se one of the Program on three occasions and his associated transfers back to Northern from Cheshire in connection with these phase regressions against defendants Maldonado, Erfe, Cournoyer, Mulligan, Robles, Bachon, Lewis, Maiga, and Quiros in their individual capacities. The court will permit the parties three months (90 days) from the date of this order to conduct discovery. Motions for summary judgment, if any, shall be filed within four months (120 days) of the date of this order. Signed by Judge Michael P. Shea on 9/10/2018. (Self, A.)
|
|
Filing
49
ORDER. The 38 43 Motions to Compel and the 42 Motion for Reconsideration of Appointment of Counsel are hereby DENIED without prejudice. The 44 Motion for Leave to Amend is hereby DENIED. The Clerk is directed to STRIKE the 47 Supplementa l Complaint from the docket. The case will proceed as to the claims in the 7 Amended Complaint, as set forth in the court's 10 Initial Review Order, and the 33 ruling granting the motion for reconsideration of the initial review order in part. The defendants' 46 Motion for Extension of Time to file a response to the first amended complaint is hereby GRANTED. Signed by Judge Michael P. Shea on 10/18/2017. (Self, A.)
|
|
Filing
33
ORDER. For the reasons set forth in the attached, the 13 motion for reconsideration is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Also, as set forth in the attached, the Court hereby orders that: 1. Within twenty-one (21) days of this Order, the U.S. Marshals Service shall serve the summons, a copy of the Amended Complaint and this Ruling and Order on defendants Warden Maldonado and Captains Jesse Johnson and Robles in their official capacities by delivering the necessary documents in person to the Office of the Attorney General, 55 Elm Street, Hartford, CT 06141.2. Within twenty-one (21) days of this Order, the Clerk shall ascertain from the Department of Correction Office of Legal Affairs the current work addresses for Warden Edward Maldonado, Captain Jesse Johnson and Captain Robles and mail a waiver of service of process request packet, including a copy of the Amended Complaint and this Ruling and Order, to each defendant in his or her individual capacity at his or her current work address. On the thirty-fifth (35th) day after mailing, the Clerk shall report to the court on the status of all the requests. If any defendant fails to return the waiver request, the Clerk shall make arrangements for in-person service by the U.S. Marshals Service and the defendant shall be required to pay the costs of such service in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(d).Signed by Judge Michael P. Shea on 5/23/2017. (Howard, H.)
|
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.
