Hutchins v. State Supreme Courts Civil/Criminal Judges et al
| Barry Hutchins |
| Connecticut Legal Srvs., Dept. of Social Srvs., U.S. Dept. of Human Services, Personal Injury's Insurance Company, Bridgport State Police, State Police, State Supreme Courts Civil/Criminal Judges, Social Security Judges, State Bar Assn., Stamford Police Dept, Food Stamps Dept., Stamford Medical Physicians, Stamford Medical Hospitals, State Mental Hygene Board of Psychiatrist and Police, Dept of Corrections, Connecticut Legal Services, Newtown, CT State Police, Stampford Police Dept, Stampford Medical Physicians A and Hospitals and Dept of Social Services |
| 3:2019cv01748 |
| November 6, 2019 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| Vanessa L Bryant |
| Prisoner Petitions - Prison Conditions |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on December 13, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 9
ORDER DISMISSING CASE. On 11/14/2019 the Court found Plaintiff's #2 Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis Insufficient and directed Plaintiff to resubmit documents sufficient to show his indigence under threat of dismissal by 12/05/2019. [ECF No. 6]. This Plaintiff did not do. Therefore, the Court dismisses this case with prejudice. The Clerk is directed to close this case. Signed by Judge Vanessa L. Bryant on 12/13/2019. (Nault, James)
|
|
Filing 8
ORDER denying #7 Motion to Appoint Counsel without prejudice to re-filing. Before the Court considers factors such as the plaintiff's ability to investigate and litigate the case, the Court must determine whether his claims pass the test of likely merit under Cooper v. A. Sargenti Co., 877 F.2d 170, 173 (2d Cir. 1989), and Hodge v. Police Officers, 802 F.2d 58, 61 (2d Cir. 1986). In Pagan v. Quiros, 3:11-cv-1134 (D. Conn.), ECF. No. 132, counsel was appointed after discovery and partial ruling on summary judgment, nearly three years after the filing of the complaint. In this case, the Plaintiff filed his motion before the Court has even conducted an initial review of his Complaint and before defendants have even been served with or answered the Complaint. Thus, the Court does not conclude that the appointment of pro bono counsel is warranted at this time. Signed by Judge Vanessa L. Bryant on 11/25/2019. (Nault, James)
|
| Filing 7 MOTION to Appoint Counsel by Barry Hutchins. (Payton, R.) |
| Filing 6 Notice to petitioner re: Insufficiency #2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. You must submit the attached Prisoner's IFP application which is being sent to you via U.S. mail. The application that was submitted to the court is missing page 1. Also, you must submit a Ledger Sheet showing the past six months transactions. If insufficiency not corrected Dismissal due by 12/5/2019 Signed by Judge William I. Garfinkel on 11/14/2019.(Payton, R.) |
|
Filing 5
STANDING ORDER ON PRISONER ELECTRONIC FILING PROGRAM Signed by Judge Janet C. Hall on 11/6/2019.(Fazekas, J.)
|
|
Filing 4
STANDING PROTECTIVE ORDER Signed by Judge Vanessa L. Bryant on 11/6/2019.(Fazekas, J.)
|
|
Filing 3
ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER FOR COUNSEL - PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER Signed by Judge Vanessa L. Bryant on 11/6/2019.(Fazekas, J.)
|
| Filing 2 PRISCS - MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Barry Hutchins. (Fazekas, J.) |
| Filing 1 PRISCS - COMPLAINT against All Defendants, filed by Barry Hutchins.(Fazekas, J.) |
Access additional case information on PACER
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.
