Brown v. Semple et al
| Kenya Brown |
| Scott Semple, Robert Trestmoon, Crubb, Santiago, Robert Martin, Jeffery Zegerzuski, James Shabbanis, Gerald Gagne, Jr., Ron Lanbontte, Aponte and Kimberly Daly |
| 3:2016cv01144 |
| July 8, 2016 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| New Haven Office |
| New Haven |
| Stefan R. Underhill |
| Prison Condition |
| 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
98
RULING AND ORDER granting 30 MOTION to Amend Complaint, and 34 MOTION to Supplement Cover Page; denying as moot 35 Second MOTION to Supplement Cover Page, 78 MOTION for Order, and 82 MOTION for Order; denying without prejudice 85 MOTION for Leave to File Extra Interrogatories, 91 MOTION for Protective Order, and 95 MOTION for Extension of Time. The Clerk shall docket the proposed amended complaint attached to 30 MOTION to Amend Complaint, pages 2 through 59, as the ame nded complaint. The Clerk also shall docket pages 60 through 80 of Doc. No. 30 as exhibits A to J of the amended complaint, and docket Doc. No. 31 as exhibits K to UU of the amended complaint. In addition, the Clerk shall docket the supplemental first page of the amended complaint attached to 34 MOTION to Supplement Cover Page, at page 5, as a supplemental first page of the amended complaint.The Clerk shall docket a copy of 91 MOTION for Protective Order in Brown v. Semple , No. 3:17-cv-01328 (SRU).All claims against defendants Nurse Pepin, Nurse George, Health Services Administrator Brown, Grievance Coordinator King and Nurse Kim have been dismissed. The Clerk shall terminate those parties from the case.Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 09/25/2017. (Jamieson, K)
|
|
Filing
76
RULING AND ORDER granting 20 MOTION for Reconsideration and denying requested relief; denying as moot 23 MOTION for Extension of Time to Amend Pleadings; granting in part and denying in part 24 MOTION for Order to Show Cause; denying 29 MOTIO N for Order to Show Cause; denying without prejudice as premature 37 , 51 , & 71 MOTIONS for Extension of Time to Respond to Amended Complaint; granting nunc pro tunc 46 MOTION for Extension of Time to Respond to Discovery; granting 74 MOTION for Extension of Time to Respond to Discovery; granting absent objection 47 MOTION to Withdraw Admissions; denying as moot 67 MOTION to Withdraw Admissions; denying without prejudice 44 MOTION to Compel, 58 MOTION for Default; denying 50 MOTION to Compel; denying for lack of good cause shown 49 MOTION to Vacate Objection, 62 MOTION to Strike Objection; denying 63 MOTION for Sanctions; granting 52 MOTION for Order; granting 53 MOTION to Modify Scheduling Order. Within ten days of the date of this order, counsel for the defendants shall mail or deliver to Brown a copy of Dr. Burns's report of his evaluation of Brown.Within twenty days of the date of this order, the defendants shall file a notice indicating whether mental health staff at Cheshire have been able to provide Brown with twice-weekly mental health treatment as well as any additional mental health treatment sought by Brown. The defendants are also directed to address what services are available at Cheshire after 2:30 p.m. each day.Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 03/30/2017. (Jamieson, K)
|
|
Filing
15
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER. Discovery due by 2/13/2017; Dispositive Motions due by 4/14/2017. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 8/16/2016. (Buttrick, A.)
|
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.
