Solek v. Naqvi et al
| Timothy Solek |
| Naqvi, Massoia, Danek, Jane Doe, Richardson, Angel Quiros and Terp |
| 3:2016cv00947 |
| June 16, 2016 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| New Haven Office |
| Hartford |
| Jeffrey A. Meyer |
| 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
20
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER: For the reasons set forth in the attached ruling, the Court enters the following orders:(1) The due process claims against defendants Massoia, Richardson, Chapdelaine, Terp, and L'Heureux are DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U. S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). The case will proceed on the claims for deliberate indifference against defendant Naqvi and for use of excessive force against defendant Danek. (2) The Clerk shall verify the current work address of defendant Danek with t he Department of Correction Office of Legal Affairs, mail a waiver of service of process request packet to him at the confirmed address within twenty-one (21) days of this Order, and report to the Court on the status of the waiver request on the thir ty-fifth (35) day after mailing. If the defendant fails to return the waiver request, the Clerk shall make arrangements for in-person service by the U.S. Marshals Service on the defendant in his individual capacity, and the defendant shall be require d to pay the costs of such service in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(d).(3) The Clerk shall send a courtesy copy of the Amended Complaint and this Order to the Connecticut Attorney General and the Department of Correction Offic e of Legal Affairs.(4) The defendants shall file their response to the Amended Complaint, either an answer or motion to dismiss, within sixty (60) days from the date of the summons. If they choose to file an answer, they shall admit or deny the a llegations and respond to the cognizable claims recited above. They also may include any and all additional defenses permitted by the Federal Rules.(5) Discovery, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 through 37, shall be completed with in seven months (210 days) from the date of this Order. Discovery requests need not be filed with the court.(6) All motions for summary judgment shall be filed within eight months (240 days) from the date of this Order.(7) Pursuant to Local C ivil Rule 7(a), a nonmoving party must respond to a dispositive motion within twenty-one (21) days of the date the motion was filed. If no response is filed, or the response is not timely, the dispositive motion can be granted absent objection.(8 ) If plaintiff changes his address at any time during the litigation of this case, Local Court Rule 83.1(c)2 provides that the plaintiff MUST notify the court. Failure to do so can result in the dismissal of the case. Plaintiff must give notice of a new address even if he is incarcerated. Plaintiff should write PLEASE NOTE MY NEW ADDRESS on the notice. It is not enough to just put the new address on a letter without indicating that it is a new address. If the plaintiff has more than one pending case, he should indicate all of the case numbers in the notification of change of address. Plaintiff should also notify the defendant or the attorney for the defendant of his new address. (9) Plaintiff shall utilize the Prisoner Efiling Program when filing documents in this case. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 12/23/2016. (Levenson, C.)
|
|
Filing
14
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER: For the reasons stated in the attached ruling, the Court enters the following orders:(1) The complaint will proceed on the claim against defendant Naqvi for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need. The deliberate i ndifference to safety claim against defendant Massoia; the denial of due process claim against defendants Richardson, Massoia and Quiros; the deliberate indifference to medical needs claims against defendants Doe and Terp; and any claims against defe ndant Danek are DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). If plaintiff wishes to replead some or all of these claims, he may file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days of the date of this order. Any amended complaint should include a ll of plaintiffs claims that he wishes to pursue (e.g., the amended complaint should also include any claim against defendant Naqvi for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need).(2) The Clerk shall verify the current work address of defe ndant Naqvi with the Department of Correction Office of Legal Affairs, mail a waiver of service of process request packet at the confirmed address within twenty-one (21) days of this Order, and report to the court on the status of the waiver request on the thirty-fifth (35) day after mailing. If the defendant fails to return the waiver request, the Clerk shall make arrangements for in-person service by the U.S. Marshals Service on the defendant in his individual capacity and the defendant shall be required to pay the costs of such service in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(d).(3) The Clerk shall prepare a summons form and send an official capacity service packet to the U.S. Marshal Service. The U.S. Marshal is directed to effect service of the complaint on defendant Naqvi in his official capacity at the Office of the Attorney General, 55 Elm Street, Hartford, CT 06141, within twenty one (21) days from the date of this order and to file a return of service within t hirty (30) days from the date of this order. (4) The Clerk shall send a courtesy copy of the Complaint and this Order to the Connecticut Attorney General and the Department of Correction Office of Legal Affairs.(5) Defendant Naqvi shall file his response to the Complaint, either an answer or motion to dismiss, within sixty (60) days from the date of the summons. If he chooses to file an answer, he shall admit or deny the allegations and respond to the cognizable claim recited above. He a lso may include any and all additional defenses permitted by the Federal Rules.(6) Discovery, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 through 37, shall be completed within seven months (210 days) from the date of this Order. Discovery req uests need not be filed with the court.(7) All motions for summary judgment shall be filed within eight months (240 days) from the date of this Order.(8) Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7(a), a nonmoving party must respond to a dispositive motio n within twenty-one (21) days of the date the motion was filed. If no response is filed, or the response is not timely, the dispositive motion can be granted absent objection.(9) If plaintiff changes his address at any time during the litigation of this case, Local Court Rule 83.1(c)(2) provides that the plaintiff MUST notify the court. Failure to do so can result in the dismissal of the case. Plaintiff must give notice of a new address even if he is incarcerated. Plaintiff should write &quo t;PLEASE NOTE MY NEW ADDRESS" on the notice. It is not enough to just put the new address on a letter without indicating that it is a new address. If the plaintiff has more than one pending case, he should indicate all of the case numbers in the notification of change of address. Plaintiff should also notify the defendant or the attorney for the defendant of his new address.(10) Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. # 3) is DENIED without prejudice. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 11/28/2016. (Levenson, C.)
|
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.
