Johnson v. Conley et al
| Roger Johnson |
| Conley, Zawistowski, Hussain, Ray Monroe, Beecher, Dzurenda, Scott Semple, David McNeil, Jamie Shepard, Seneca Spruil, David Hebert, Mia Lawrence, Colon, Monica Rinaldi, Maldonado, Acus and Brown |
| 3:2017cv00070 |
| January 13, 2017 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| New Haven Office |
| Tolland |
| 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
52
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. For the reasons set forth in the attached ruling, defendants' motion for summary judgment (Doc. # 38 ) is GRANTED. Plaintiff's motion for hearing (Doc. # 45 ) and motion to appoint counsel (Doc. # 51 ) are DENIED as moot. The Clerk of Court shall close this case. It is so ordered.Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 09/05/2018. (Rubin, N.)
|
|
Filing
7
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER: For the reasons set forth in the attached ruling, the Court enters the following orders: (1) The claims against defendants in their official capacities are DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(2). All claims again st Commissioner Semple and PREA Director McNeil, as well as plaintiff's PREA and conspiracy claims are DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). The First Amendment retaliation claims will proceed against defendants Shepard, Spruil, He bert, Lawrence, Hussain, Colon, Acus, Brown, and Maldonado in their individual capacities. The Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to safety claims will proceed against defendants Conley, Zawistowski, Monroe, Beecher, Dzurenda, Rinaldi, Maldonad o, Colon, Hussain, Brown, Shepard, Spruil, Hebert, Acus, and Lawrence in their individual capacities. The Eighth Amendment excessive force claims will proceed against defendants Colon, Acus, Brown, and Lawrence in their individual capacities. The Fou rteenth Amendment bodily privacy claims will proceed against defendants Conley, Zawistowski, Monroe, Beecher, Hussain, and Dzurenda in their individual capacities. The Court's ruling on these issues is without prejudice to the right of any defen dant to challenge the legal adequacy of plaintiff's pleadings. (2) Within twenty-one (21) days of this Order, the Clerk shall ascertain from the Department of Correction Office of Legal Affairs the current work addresses for Commissioner Dzu renda, Deputy Commissioner Monica Rinaldi, Warden Maldonado, Captain Colon, Correctional Enterprises of Connecticut Supervisor Zawistowski, Correctional Enterprises of Connecticut Supervisor Hussain, Correctional Enterprises of Connecticut Supervisor Beecher, Industries Manager Ray Monroe, Lieutenant Brown, Lieutenant Jamie Shepard, Lieutenant Seneca Spruil, Lieutenant David Hebert, Correctional Officer Conley, Correctional Officer Acus, and Counselor Mia Lawrence. The Clerk shall mail a waiver of service of process request packet to each defendant in his or her individual capacity at his or her current work address. On the thirty-fifth (35th) day after mailing, the Clerk shall report to the court on the status of the request. If any defend ant fails to return the waiver request, the Clerk shall make arrangements for in-person service by the U.S. Marshals Service. (3) Defendants shall file their response to the complaint, either an answer or motion to dismiss, within sixty (60) days from the date the notice of lawsuit and waiver of service of summons forms are mailed to him. 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 of 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 respo nse 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 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 i ndicating that it is a new address. If 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 defendants or counsel for defendants of his new address. (9) Plaintiff shall utilize the Prisoner Efiling Program when filing documents with the court. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 4/14/2017.(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.
