Cerilli v. Malloy et al
| Raymond J. Cerilli |
| Dannel P. Malloy, Scott Semple, G. Gerbino, G. Valletta, Lea Pannella, Tim Bombard, J. Augusto, Ted Lawlor, J. Wu and John Doe |
| 3:2016cv02087 |
| December 16, 2016 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| New Haven Office |
| Hartford |
| 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
20
ORDER denying 19 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Stefan R Underhill on 9/3/2019. (Kaas, E.)
|
|
Filing
14
ORDER Vacating 8 Order on Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis and Denying 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Raymond J. Cerilli. All further proceedings in this matter shall be held in abeyance for twenty (20) days pending Cerillis delivery of the filing fee in the amount of $400.00 (cash, bank check or money order made payable to the Clerk of Court) to the Clerks Office, 915 Lafayette Boulevard, Bridgeport, CT 06604. Failure to tender the filing fee within twenty (20) days from the date of this Order will result in the dismissal of this action. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 2/10/2017.(Landman, M)
|
|
Filing
9
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER Discovery due by 8/18/2017 Dispositive Motions due by 9/17/2017 Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 1/17/2017.(Oliver, T.)
|
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.
