Davis v. Williams et al
Plaintiff: Michael Davis
Defendant: Charles Williams and Hutton
Case Number: 3:2016cv01981
Filed: December 5, 2016
Court: US District Court for the District of Connecticut
Office: New Haven Office
County: Tolland
Presiding Judge: Jeffrey A. Meyer
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
March 4, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 25 RULING DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION. For the reasons set forth in the attached ruling, Plaintiff Michael Davis's motion for reconsideration (Doc. # 21 ) is DENIED. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 3/4/2019. (Sokoloff-Rubin, E.)
February 16, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 19 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS. For the reasons stated in the attached ruling, the Court GRANTS defendants' motion to dismiss (Doc. # 17 ). If plaintiff believes that the Court has based its decision on any misunderstanding of the facts or law, plaintiff may promptly file a motion for reconsideration within 14 days of this decision by March 2, 2018. The Clerk of Court shall close this case. It is so ordered.Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 2/16/2018. (Lombard, N.)
February 7, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 7 INITIAL REVIEW ORDER: In accordance with the attached ruling, the Court enters the following orders: (1)The Clerk shall verify the current work address of each defendant with the Department of Correction Office of Legal Affairs, mail a waiver of service of process request packet to them at the confirmed addresses 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 either defendant fails to retu rn the waiver request, the Clerk shall make arrangements for in-person service by the U.S. Marshals Service on the defendant in his or her individual capacity and the defendant shall be required to pay the costs of such service in accordance with Fed eral Rule of Civil Procedure 4(d). (2)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 defendants in their official capacities 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 thirty (30) days from the date of this order.(3)The Clerk shall se nd written notice to plaintiff of the status of this action, along with a copy of this Order.(4)The Clerk shall send a courtesy copy of the Complaint and this Ruling and Order to the Connecticut Attorney General and the Department of Correction Of fice of Legal Affairs. (5) Defendants shall file their response to the complaint, either an answer or motion to dismiss, within sixty (60) days from the date the waiver form is sent. 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. (6)Discovery, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 through 37, shall be completed withi n seven months (210 days) from the date of this order. Discovery requests 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 Civ il 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. (9)I f 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 plaintiff has more than one pending case, h e should indicate all of the case numbers in the notification of change of address. Plaintiff should also notify the defendants or the attorney for the defendants of his new address. (10)Plaintiff shall utilize the Prisoner Efiling Program when filing documents with the court. Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 2/7/2017. (Townsend, D.)
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: Davis v. Williams 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: Michael Davis
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: Charles Williams
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: Hutton
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?