Dehaney v. Chagnon et al
| Errol Dehaney |
| Amy Chagnon and Maria Pirro Simmons |
| 3:2017cv00308 |
| February 17, 2017 |
| 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
68
ORDER ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. For the reasons stated in the accompanying ruling, the motion of defendants Amy Chagnon and Maria Pirro Simmons for summary judgment (Doc. # 41 ) against plaintiff Errol DeHaney is GRANTED in part and DENIED in p art as described herein.As to DeHaney's First Amendment retaliation claim, the motion for summary judgment is GRANTED against him as follows: (1) to the extent that DeHaney's claim is based on the adverse action of his removal from the tutor position; (2) to the extent that DeHaney seeks an award of money damages against either Chagnon or Pirro for issuance of the unfavorable work report; and (3) to the extent that DeHaney seeks declaratory or injunctive relief against Pirro in her individual capacity. As to DeHaney's First Amendment retaliation claim, defendants' motion for summary judgment is DENIED to the extent that DeHaney seeks declaratory or injunctive relief including expungement of the work report against de fendants Chagnon in her personal and official capacity and Pirro in her official capacity only.As to DeHaney's Equal Protection claim, the motion for summary judgment is GRANTED against him in its entirety. The trial of this action shall the refore proceed solely as to DeHaney's First Amendment retaliation claim with respect to issuance of the unfavorable work report against Chagnon in her individual and official capacity and against Pirro in her official capacity and solely with re spect to DeHaney's claims for expungement or other appropriate declaratory or injunctive relief. The Clerk of Court shall identify Pirro's successor as the principal of the school at MacDougall and substitute that successor as a party to th is action.DeHaney's motion for leave to submit evidence (Doc. # 62 ) is DENIED for substantially the reasons set forth in defendants' objection (Doc. # 63 ) and without prejudice to offering any appropriate admissible evidence at trial. It is so ordered.Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 1/25/2019. (Rubin, N.)
|
|
Filing
8
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER. For the reasons set forth in the attached ruling, the Court enters the following orders: (1) The conspiracy and PREA claims are DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). All claims for monetary damages against def endants in their official capacities are dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(2). The First Amendment retaliation claim and the Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claim will proceed against defendants in their individual capacities, as well as against defendants in their official capacities insofar as plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief. (2) Within twenty-one (21) days of this Order, the Clerk shall ascertain from the Department of Correction Office of Legal Affai rs the current work addresses for Principal Maria Pirro Simmons and Amy Chagnon and mail a waiver of service of process request packet to each defendant in her individual capacity at her current work address. On the thirty-fifth (35th) day after mail ing, the Clerk shall report to the court on the status of the request. If either defendant fails to return the waiver request, the Clerk shall make arrangements for in-person service by the U.S. Marshals Service.(3) Within twenty-one (21) days of this Order, the U.S. Marshals Service shall serve the summons, a copy of the complaint, and this order on defendants in their official capacities by delivering the necessary documents in person to the Office of the Attorney General, 55 Elm Street, H artford, CT 06141. (4) 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 them. If defendan ts 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.(5) Discovery, pursuant to Federal Rule s of Civil Procedure 26 through 37, shall be completed within six months (180 days) from the date of this order. Discovery requests should not be filed with the court.(6) All motions for summary judgment shall be filed within seven months (210 da ys) from the date of this order. (7) 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.(8) Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7(a), a nonmovi ng 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) If plaintiff changes hi s 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 i ncarcerated. 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, 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. (10) Plaintiff shall utilize the Prisoner Efiling Program when filing documents with the court. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 6/20/2017.(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.
