Moore v. Norwalk et al
| Chauncey Moore |
| Town of Norwalk and John Doe |
| 3:2017cv00695 |
| April 26, 2017 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| New Haven Office |
| New Haven |
| 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
113
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION. For the reasons set forth in the attached opinion, the Court reinstates the prior judgment that has been separately entered on the docket (Doc. # 64 ), and the Clerk of Court shall close this case. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 10/26/2020. (Johnson, R.)
|
|
Filing
69
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO ALTER JUDGMENT IN PART. For the reasons described in the attached opinion, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff Moores motion to reopen the judgment (Doc. # 65 ) for the limited purpose of holding an evidentiary hearing at 10:00AM o n October 2, 2019 in Courtroom Three, 141 Church Street New Haven CT 06510, to consider the issue of whether Moore made the information requests that he claims to have made in January, February, and March 2017. At the evidentiary hearing, the Cou rt will require the sworn testimony of Moore and the sworn testimony of any appropriate town officials. Counsel shall meet and confer in advance of the hearing with respect to any witnesses to be called or evidence to be introduced at the hearing and , no later than September 27, 2019, shall jointly file on the docket the list of witnesses each party will call and exhibits they will present. Documentary exhibits shall be filed on the docket attached to this joint list, in exhibit number order. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 9/3/2019. (Webley, A)
|
|
Filing
63
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS. The Court GRANTS the motion to dismiss. Because the Court has previously given plaintiff an opportunity to re-plead the Monell claim and because any amendment to the remaining claims would be futile, the federal claims are dismissed with prejudice, but without prejudice to plaintiff's right to pursue relief on any state law claims in state court. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 09/24/2018. (Sokoloff-Rubin, E.)
|
|
Filing
7
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER Pursuant to the attached ruling, the Court enters the following orders: (1) All claims against the defendant Town of Norwalk are DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), without prejudice to filing an amended complaint if plaintiff can allege facts, in good faith, forming a basis for municipal liability. The excessive force claims (and their failure-to-intercede counterparts) against all individual Police Officers John Does #1-#6 in their individual capacities sha ll proceed. In addition, the claims of unreasonable search shall proceed as against Officers Doe #1, Doe #2, Doe #3, Doe #4, and Supervisor Doe #6 in their individual capacities. All claims seeking damages against any defendant in his or her official capacity pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(2) are DISMISSED. (2) Plaintiffs individual-capacity claims against the individual "John Doe" defendants may proceed. Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint by August 15, 2017, identifying by name any John Doe defendants or shall file a motion for extension of time to file an amended complaint explaining why he has been unable to name any "John Doe" defendants. (3) If plaintiff wishes the Court to appoint pro bono counsel to represent him in this action, then plaintiff should promptly file a motion by July 15, 2017, requesting the appointment of counsel and stating what efforts plaintiff has made to date to secure privately retained counsel. (4) 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 inca rcerated. 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 th e case numbers in the notification of change of address. Plaintiff should also notify the defendant or the attorney for the defendant of his new address. (5) Plaintiff shall utilize the Prisoner Efiling Program when filing documents with the Court. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 6/15/2017. (Black, R.)
|
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.
