Tuttle v. Semple et al
| David Tuttle |
| Scott Semple, William Faneuff, Edward Maldonado, Davis, Magiafico and Johnson |
| 3:2017cv02099 |
| December 18, 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
8
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. As stated in the attached ruling, because the Court concludes that plaintiff's complaint only alleges one plausible claim against one defendant, Officer Johnson, the Court will grant plain tiff the opportunity to file an amended complaint in this case if he believes he can state a plausible claim of denial of access to the courts. If he chooses to file an amended complaint restating his claim for denial of access to the courts, plainti ff must explain in detail how the actions of each defendant caused him actual injury according to the principles set forth in the attached ruling. If plaintiff does not file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days of the date of this order, the case will proceed only on the retaliation claim against Officer Johnson, and the Court will direct the Clerk of Court to effect service accordingly. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 3/6/2018. (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.
