Stimpson v. Commissioner of Corrections et al
Plaintiff: Merle E. Stimpson
Defendant: Commissioner of Corrections, Carol Chapdelaine and Hall
Case Number: 3:2016cv00520
Filed: April 1, 2016
Court: US District Court for the District of Connecticut
Office: New Haven Office
County: Hartford
Presiding Judge: Stefan R. Underhill
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983
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 1, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 42 INITIAL REVIEW ORDER. Per my order dated 6/30/2017 (doc. # 37), discovery is due by 10/23/2017 and dispositive motions are due by 11/24/2017. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 9/1/2017. (Schneider, K)
January 23, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 22 INITIAL REVIEW ORDER and ORDER ON MOTIONS. The 16 Application for Proceed In Forma Pauperis is denied as moot. The 15 Amended Complaint is dismissed for failure to comply with the court's prior orders and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. s. 1915A(b)(1). The letter motions seeking to add defendants 17 , and seeking injunctive relief 18 , are denied. With regard to the claims in the Complaint [ECF No. 1], the following claims are dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. s. 1915A(b)(1): the claims against the Connecticut Department of Correction, the Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claims related to Stimpson's placement in administrative detention and the Fourteenth Amendment failure to protect from harm claim. The claims against defendants Chapdelaine, Hall, and the Commissioner of Correction in their official capacities are dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. s. 1915A(b)(2).The Eighth Amendment claims of deliberate indifference to harm and failure to prot ect from harm as asserted in the Complaint [ECF No. 1] will proceed against Captain Hall, Warden Chapdelaine, and the Commissioner of Correction in their individual capacities. Discovery is due by 8/24/2017 and Dispositive Motions are due by 9/23/2017. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 1/23/2017. (Buttrick, A.)
June 29, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 12 ORDER denying 3 Motion for Order without prejudice; granting 11 Motion to Amend/Correct. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 6/29/2016. (Buttrick, 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: Stimpson v. Commissioner of Corrections 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: Merle E. Stimpson
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: Commissioner 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 ]
Defendant: Carol Chapdelaine
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: Hall
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?