Milner v. Laplante et al
| Shawn Milner |
| Sharron Laplante, Chris, Joe, Micheal, Denise, Allison Black and Rivera |
| 3:2018cv00903 |
| May 29, 2018 |
| 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
211
ORDER RE CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. For the reasons stated in the attached ruling, the Court GRANTS defendant Dr. Laplante's motion for partial summary judgment (Doc. # 170 ) with respect to Milner's claim of deliberate indifferenc e as to the treatment of his seizure condition. The Court DENIES plaintiff Milner's cross-motion for summary judgment (Doc # 175 ) with respect to Dr. Laplante's treatment of both his seizure and pain conditions. Accordingly, this case shal l proceed to trial solely with respect to Milner's claim that Dr. Laplante was deliberately indifferent with respect to treatment of his conditions of pain and anxiety. The Court will separately enter a trial scheduling order. Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 09/30/2022. (Heavenrich, S.)
|
|
Filing
105
ORDER RE CROSS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Docs. # 80 , 84 ). For the reasons set forth in the attached opinion, the defendants' motion for summary judgment (Doc. # 80 ) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The motion is granted as to defen dants Warden Allison Black, Lieutenant Rivera, Nurse Chris, Nurse Denise, Nurse Joe, and Nurse Michael for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The motion is denied as to defendant Dr. Sharron Laplante with respect to plaintiff Shawn Milner� 39;s claim under the Fourteenth Amendment for deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. Plaintiff Shawn Milner's cross-motion for summary judgment (Doc. # 84 ) is DENIED. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 02/24/2021. (Martinez, C.)
|
|
Filing
65
ORDER DISMISSING CASE. For the reasons set forth in the attached opinion, the Court DISMISSES this case pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) without prejudice to plaintiff's filing of a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 (b) explaining why he has not complied with the Court's order to show cause. Any such motion must be filed promptly upon plaintiff's learning of the dismissal of this action. The Court DENIES without prejudice all pending motions as moot in light of the dismissal of this action. The Clerk of Court shall close this case. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 1/10/2020. (Al-Jarani, Y.)
|
|
Filing
14
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER: For the reasons discussed in the attached ruling, plaintiff's ADA claims are DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), and his motion for a temporary restraining order (Doc. #8) is DENIED as moot . The case will proceed on plaintiff's claims for money damages arising from alleged deliberate indifference to serious medical needs by all defendants as well as Nurse Joe's confinement of plaintiff to an overnight stay without clothing in the medical unit. The Court enters the following orders:(1) The Clerk shall verify the current work address for each defendant with the Department of Correction Office of Legal Affairs, mail a waiver of service of process request packet t o each defendant at the address provided within twenty-one (21) days of this Order, and report to the Court on the status of those waiver requests on the thirty-fifth day after mailing. If any defendant fails to return the waiver request, the Clerk s hall make arrangements for in-person service by the U.S. Marshals Service on the defendant in his or her individual capacity and the defendant shall be required to pay the costs of such service in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(d). (2) The Clerk shall prepare a summons form and send an official capacity service packet to the U.S. Marshal Service. The U.S. Marshal is directed to effect service of the complaint on the defendants in their official capacities at the Offi ce of the Attorney General, 55 Elm Street, Hartford, CT 06141, within twenty-one (21) days from the date of this order and to file a return of service within thirty (30) days from the date of this order.(3) The Clerk shall send plai ntiff a copy of this Order.(4) The Clerk shall send a courtesy copy of the Complaint and this Order to the Connecticut Attorney General and the Department of Correction Office of Legal Affairs.(5) The defendants shall file their respon se to the complaint, either an answer or motion to dismiss, within sixty (60) days from the date the waiver forms are sent. If they choose to file an answer, they shall admit or deny the allegations and respond to the cognizable claim recited above. They also may include any and all additional defenses permitted by the Federal Rules.(6) Discovery, pursuant to Federal 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.(7) All motions for summary judgment shall be filed within eight months (240 days) from the date of this order.(8)Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7(a), a nonmoving party must resp ond 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.(9) If plaintiff changes his address at any t ime 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. Plain tiff 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 the defendant or the attorney for the defendant of his new address. (10) Plaintiff shall utilize the Prisoner Efiling Program when filing documents with the court. Plaintiff i s advised that the Program may be used only to file documents with the court. Local court rules provide that discovery requests are not filed with the court. D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 5(f). Therefore, discovery requests must be served on defendants' counsel by regular mail.It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 1/2/2019. (Sokoloff-Rubin, E.)
|
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.
