Fowler v. Correction et al
| Jamarr Fowler |
| Department of Correction, Scott Semple, Karen Martucci, Kathleen Maurer, Colleen Gallagher, Angel Quiros, David Marga, Monica Rulaldi, M. Vazquez, Maldonado, Wright, Long, Colon, Lizon, Gramaldi, Santiago, Martin, Zegarzewski, Gillette, Conger, Nemeth, Dousis, Richardson, Congelos, Griffen, Carol Chapdelaine, Hall, Collins, Roy, Santana, Rule, Gonzalez and Leightner |
| 3:2017cv00848 |
| May 22, 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
111
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. For the reasons stated in the accompanying ruling, the Court concludes that no reasonable jury could find that defendants violated Fowler's rights under the Constitution, ADA, or Rehabilitation Act. De fendants' motion for summary judgment (Doc. # 77 ) is GRANTED. The motions to schedule case for trial (Doc. # 70 ) and motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction (Doc. # 74 ) are DENIED as moot in light of this ruling. The Clerk of Court shall close this case.Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 3/4/2019. (Rubin, N.)
|
|
Filing
11
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER. As set forth in the attached ruling, the Court enters the following orders:(1) Plaintiff's discrimination and retaliation claims under the ADA and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act will proceed against defendant Conn ecticut Department of Correction for monetary damages.(2) Plaintiff's First Amendment retaliation claim will proceed against defendants Maldonado, Colon, Griffen, Richardson, Chapdelaine, Hall, and Leightner in their individual capacities fo r monetary damages.(3) Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to medical needs claim will proceed against defendants Semple, Gallagher, Maurer, Martucci, Maldonado, Wright, Long, Colon, Santiago, Martin, Zegarzewski, Gillette, Conger, Chapdelaine, Roy, Rule, Gonzalez, Leightner, Marga, Griffen, and Lizon in their individual capacities for monetary damages.(4) Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claim will proceed against defendants Semple, Sant iago, Martin, Nemeth, Dousis, Richardson, Conger, Chapdelaine, Rule, Gonzalez, and Congelos in their individual capacities for monetary damages.(5) Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claim will proceed against defendants Martu cci, Maldonado, Wright, Colon, Santiago, Martin, Zegarzewski, Gillette, and Chapdelaine in their individual capacities for monetary damages.(6) All other claims not listed above are DISMISSED. The Clerk of Court shall dismiss Quiros, Rinal di, Long, Grimaldi, and Collins as defendants.(7) 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 the DOC in its official capacity by delivering the necessary documents in person to the Office of the Attorney General, 55 Elm Street, Hartford, CT 06141. (8) The Clerk shall verify the current work addresses for defendants Semple, Martucci, Maurer, Gallagher, Marga, Vazquez, Maldonad o, Wright, Colon, Lizon, Santiago, Martin, Zegarzewski, Gillette, Conger, Nemeth, Dousis, Richardson, Congelos, Griffen, Chapdelaine, Hall, Roy, Santana, Rule, Gonzalez, and Leightner with the DOC Office of Legal Affairs, mail a waiver of service of process request packet containing the complaint to each defendant at the confirmed address 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 an y defendant fails to return the waiver request, the Clerk shall make arrangements for in-person service by the U.S. Marshals Service on him or her, and the defendant shall be required to pay the costs of such service in accordance with Federal Rule o f Civil Procedure 4(d).(9) 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 they 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.(10) Discovery, pursuant to Federa l Rules of Civil Procedure 26 through 37, shall be completed within seven months (210 days) from the date of this order. Discovery requests need not be filed with the court.(11) All motions for summary judgment shall be filed within eig ht months (240 days) from the date of this order.(12) Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7(a), a nonmoving party must respond to dispositive motion within twenty-one (21) days of the date the motion was filed. If no response is filed, or the respon se is not timely, the dispositive motion can be granted absent objection.(13) 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 indi cating 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. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 8/8/2017. (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.
