Franko v. Semple et al
| Lawrence Franko |
| Scott Semple, Timothy Ferrell, Ruiz, Lisa Simo-Kinzer, Brighthaupt, John Doe and Syed Naqvi |
| 3:2017cv01558 |
| September 18, 2017 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| New Haven Office |
| New Haven |
| Jeffrey A. Meyer |
| 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
86
RULING: For the reasons stated in the attached Ruling, the plaintiff's Motion in Limine (Doc. No. 74) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Signed by Judge Robert M. Spector on 4/23/2019. (Stokely, Justyn)
|
|
Filing
7
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER. For the reasons stated in the attached ruling, the Court enters the following orders: (1) Plaintiffs Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs may proceed against Warden Ferrell, Warden Brig hthaupt, Lisa Simo-Kinzer, Dr. Ruiz, John Doe 1, and John Doe 2 in their individual capacities for monetary damages. Plaintiffs claims against Commissioner Semple and Dr. Naqvi are dismissed.(2) The Clerk of Court shall verify the current work a ddresses for defendants Ferrell, Brighthaupt, Simo-Kinzer, and Ruiz 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 any defendant fails to return the waiver request, the clerk shall make arrangements for in-person service by t he U.S. Marshals Service on him or her, and the defendant shall be required to pay the costs of such service in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d). (3) Because plaintiff has not identified John Doe 1 or John Doe 2 by name, the Clerk is not able to serve a copy of the complaint on those defendants in their individual capacities. Plaintiff must, within ninety (90) days of the date of this order, conduct discovery and file a notice indicating the first and last name of those two defen dants. If plaintiff files the notice, the court will direct the clerk to effect service of the complaint on those defendants in their individual capacities. If plaintiff fails to identify those defendants within the time specified, his claim agains t them will be dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).(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 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.< br>(5) Discovery, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26-37, shall be completed within six months (180 days) from the date of this order. Discovery requests need not be filed with the court.(6) All motions for summary judgment shall be filed within seven months (210 days) from the date of this order.It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 11/27/2017. (Zuckier, 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.
