White v. Doe et al
| Antuan White |
| John Doe, Jane Doe, James Dzurenda, Scott Semple, Monica Rinaldi, Angel Quiros, Edward Maldonado, Gary Wright, Barone, David McNeil, J. Maldonado, Luis Colon, Gargullo, Jose Torres, Hayles, Wendy Moriarty, Cote, Omara and Scott Mazza |
| 3:2016cv01874 |
| November 14, 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
176
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 163 Motion for Summary Judgment. The motion is GRANTED as to White's claim against Officer Moriarty under the Eighth Amendment and as to White's claim against Captain Colon, Lieutenant Torres, Ca ptain Maldonado, and Director McNeil under the First Amendment. The motion is DENIED as to White's claim against Officer Moriarty under the Fourth Amendment. Therefore, this action shall proceed to trial as to the following claims against the fo llowing defendants: (a) against Officer Moriarty as to White's claims under the First Amendment and the Fourth Amendment, and (b) against Officer Gargullo as to White's claim under the Eighth Amendment. I have considered all other arguments and precedent raised by the parties even if these arguments have not been expressly addressed in this ruling. Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on September 3, 2021. (Brooks, E.)
|
|
Filing
128
RULING: granting in part and denying in part 107 Motion to Compel. As set forth in the attached Ruling, production shall be made by September 8, 2020; the documents, if any, for in camera review shall be submitted to the Court by September 8, 2020; and the discovery deadline, as set forth in Doc. No. 124, is September 8, 2020. The dispositive motion deadline is October 8, 2020. Signed by Judge Robert M. Spector on 8/26/2020. (Watson, M.)
|
|
Filing
12
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER: Pursuant to the attached ruling, the Court issues the following orders: (1) The following claims are dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1): all claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1985; any claims against John or Jane Does, or against the State of Connecticut or Department of Correction; all PREA claims against Mazza, Quiros, Semple, Dzurenda, J. Maldonado, Wright, Barone, and McNeil; and the due process claims against Torres, Rinaldi, Quiros, Cote, Omara, a nd Hayles. The following claims will proceed: Eighth Amendment claims against Moriarty and Gargullo; and First Amendment retaliation claims against Moriarty, Colon, Torres, McNeil, J. Maldonado, and Warden Maldonado. (2) The Clerk shall mail a ser vice packet to plaintiff, who is responsible for serving all defendants that have not already been dismissed within 21 days of receiving the service packet. (3) Defendants shall file their response to the complaint, either an answer or moti on to dismiss, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12. If defendants choose to file an answer, they shall admit or deny the allegations and respond to the cognizable claims recited above. They may also include any and all additional defenses permitted by the Federal Rules.(4) Discovery, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 through 37, shall be completed within six months (180 days) from the date of this order. Discovery requests need not be filed with the Court. ( 5) All motions for summary judgment shall be filed within seven months (210 days) from the date of this order. (6) The Clerk shall send a courtesy copy of the Complaint and this Order to the Connecticut Attorney General and the Department o f Correction Legal Affairs Unit. (7) Pursuant to Local Civil 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, th e 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 i n 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 defendant or defendants attorney of his new address. (9) Plaintiff shall utilize the Prisoner Efiling Program when filing documents with the court. Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 6/13/2017.(Townsend, D.)
|
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.
