Whipper v. Erfe et al
| Alphonso Whipper |
| Scott Erfe, Angel Quiros, Amonda Hannah, Selena Rious, James Watson, Anna Verdura and James Wright |
| 3:2018cv00347 |
| February 27, 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 |
| 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
27
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION. For the reasons stated in the accompanying ruling, the Court adheres to its decision (Doc. # 17 ) dismissing Whipper's retaliation claims against Rious and Quiros, dismissing Whipper's due process claims, and dismissing Whipper's claims for injunctive relief against Quiros and Erfe. The Court therefore DENIES Whipper's motion for reconsideration. It is so ordered.Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 2/28/2019. (Rubin, N.)
|
|
Filing
17
INITIAL REVIEW OF AMENDED COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. In accordance with the accompanying ruling, the Court enters the following orders:(1) All claims against Rious and Quiros remain dismissed. The Clerk is directed to terminate Rious and Quiros as defendants to this action. Whipper's claims for retaliation may proceed against Watson, Verdura, Wright, Erfe, and Hannah in their individual capacities for damages. The Fourteenth Amendment claims and the request for injunc tive relief are dismissed.(2) The Clerk shall verify the current work addresses for Erfe and Hannah with the Department of Correction's Office of Legal Affairs, mail a waiver of service of process request packet containing the amended compla int (Doc. # 16 ) to both defendants at the confirmed addresses 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 Erfe or Hannah fails to return the waiver 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) All defendants shall 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 Erfe and Hannah. 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.(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 non moving 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 Whipper c hanges his address at any time during the litigation of this case, Local Court Rule 83.1(c)2 provides that he MUST notify the court. Failure to do so can result in the dismissal of the case. Whipper must give notice of a new address even if he is inc arcerated. Whipper 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 Whipper has more than one pending case, he should indicate all of the case numbers in the notification of change of address. Whipper 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
9
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER. For the reasons stated in the attached ruling, the Court enters the following orders:(1) All claims against Hannah, Rious, Erfe, and Quiros are dismissed. Plaintiffs request for injunctive relief is dismissed. Plaintiffs claims for retaliation may proceed against Watson, Verdura, and Wright in their individual capacity for money damages.(2) The Clerk shall verify the current work addresses for Watson, Verdura, and Wright with the DOC Office of Legal Affairs, mail a waiver of service of process request packet containing the complaint to the 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-fift h (35) day after mailing. If the 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 servic e in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d).(3) The 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 the defendant chooses to file an answer, he shall admit or deny the allegations and respond to the cognizable claims recited above. He may also include any and all additional defenses permitted by the Federal Rules.< br>(4) 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.(5) 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 5/25/2018. (Lombard, N.)
|
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.
