Jacques v. Department of Corrections et al
| Jean Jacques |
| Department of Corrections, Scott Semple, Anthony Santiago, Mary Ellen Castro, John Doe and Jane Doe |
| 3:2018cv00308 |
| February 20, 2018 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| New Haven Office |
| New Haven |
| Jeffrey A. Meyer |
| Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| None |
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
15
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER OF AMENDED COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. In accordance with the accompanying ruling, the Court enters the following orders:(1) Jacques's Eighth Amendment excessive force claims may proceed against Marston , Conger, Ayala, Martin, Evans, Sposa, Quesnal, Colby, Montanari, and Reynoso in their individual capacities for damages. His Eighth Amendment excessive force claims on a theory of supervisory liability may proceed against Shabenas, Marston, and Cong er in their individual capacities for damages. His remaining claims against these above-named defendants are dismissed, as well as his claim against Santiago and his claim against the Department of Correction.(2) The Clerk shall verify the curren t work addresses of Marston, Conger, Ayala, Martin, Evans, Sposa, Quesnal, Colby, Montanari, Shabenas, and Reynoso with the DOC Office of Legal Affairs, mail a waiver of service of process request packet containing the amended complaint (Doc. # 14 ) to those defendants at the confirmed addresses within twenty-one (21) days of this Order, and report to the Court on the status of the waiver requests on the thirty-fifth (35) day after mailing. If any defendant fails to return the waiv er request, the Clerk shall make arrangements for in-person service by the U.S. Marshals Service on him/her, and he/she shall be required to pay the costs of such service in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(d).(3) Defendants shal l file their response to the amended 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 defendants 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.(4) Discovery, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26-37, shall be completed by April 28, 2019. Discovery requests need not be filed with the Court.(5) All motions for summary judgment shall be filed by May 28, 2019.(6) Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7(a), a nonmoving 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.(7) If plaintiff changes his address at a ny 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. Pla intiff 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 defense counsel of his new address.It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 10/30/2018. (Rubin, N.)
|
|
Filing
11
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). If plaintiff can allege facts to support a claim against a named defendant of deliberate indifference to serious medical needs or a violation of any other constitutional right, then he may file an amended complaint by June 25, 2018. Notwithstanding the significant hardshi p and difficulties that plaintiff alleges that he has experienced, plaintiff should give very careful consideration to whether there was a clear violation of his constitutional rights for which any defendant against whom he might file suit would not have qualified immunity from his claim for money damages. The Clerk of Court shall close this case if plaintiff chooses not to timely file an amended complaint by June 25, 2018. Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 5/25/18. (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.
