Carolina v. Feder et al
| Tyrone D. Carolina |
| Martin, Daily, Ingrid Feder, Vallero, Stepheny, Malissa and Jusseaume |
| 3:2020cv00658 |
| May 12, 2020 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| Stefan R Underhill |
| Prisoner Petitions - Prison Conditions |
| 42 U.S.C. § 1983 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on February 24, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 15 MOTION for Extension of Time to properly execute claim to present it to the court. by Tyrone D. Carolina. (Payton, R.) |
| Filing 14 JUDGMENT.For Appeal Forms please go to the following website: http://www.ctd.uscourts.gov/forms/all-forms/appeals_forms Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 6/19/2020.(Jaiman, R.) |
Filing 13
ORDER directing the Clerk to close this case and to enter judgment in favor of the defendants. On May 20, 2020, I denied Carolina's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. See Order, Doc. No. #7 . In my Order, I explained that the "proceedings in this matter shall be held in abeyance for twenty (20) days pending Carolina's delivery of the filing fee in the amount of $400.00 (cash, bank check or money order made payable to the Clerk of Court) to the Clerk's Office, 915 Lafayette Boulevard, Bridgeport, CT 06604." Id. at 6. I also stated that Carolina's "[f]ailure to file the filing fee within twenty (20) days from the date of this order will result in the dismissal of this action." Id. Thus, Carolina was required to pay the filing fee by June 9, 2020, which is twenty days from May 20. Carolina has failed to pay his filing fee by June 9, 2020, and he has not filed a motion for an extension of time to do so. Instead, he filed a motion for reconsideration, doc. no. #10 , which I denied, doc. no. 12. Thus, this case is dismissed without prejudice. Carolina's other pending motions to amend the complaint, doc. nos. #8 and #11 , and for appointment of counsel, doc. no. #9 , are denied as moot. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 06/19/2020. (Rosenberg, J.)
|
|
Filing 12
ORDER denying #10 Carolina's motion for reconsideration. I recently explained that Carolina was not eligible to proceed in forma pauperis because he was subject to the three strikes provision of the PLRA. See Order, Doc. No. 7. In that Order, I noted that the only portion of Carolina's complaint for which he might be eligible for in forma pauperis status was his claim that the Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs, which made him sick. See Order, Doc. No. 7, at 4-5. However, I explained, Carolina was not eligible to proceed in forma pauperis even with respect to that claim because he did not allege that he was under imminent danger of serious physical injury at the time he filed his complaint, on May 12. See id. at 5. In his motion for reconsideration, Carolina largely reiterates his claims that do not regard his well-being. However, Carolina also alleges that (1) he attempted to file his case on May 6, and (2) he "continued being sick after [he] was released" from quarantine on May 6. See Mot. for Reconsid., Doc. No. 10, at 3, 4. Reconsideration will generally be denied "unless the moving party can point to controlling decision or data that the court overlooked." Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995). Although now Carolina alleges that he was still sick at the time he filed this complaint, his claims still do not suggest that he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury at that time. In both his original complaint and his motion for reconsideration, Carolina does not focus on the extent of his illness, either during his quarantine, or, especially, after (on May 6 or later). Instead, Carolina focuses on his experience before and during quarantine, from April 22 to May 6. Carolina gives no indication of the severity of his illness at the time he filed this complaint. Indeed, Carolina's submission seems to indicate that his illness was not severe: he describes being sick in the past tense, and he does not say, for instance, that he still feels ill. Simply being sick does not rise to the level of an "imminent danger of serious physical injury."Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 06/18/2020. (Rosenberg, J.)
|
| Filing 11 MOTION to Amend/Correct resolutions and grievances by Tyrone D. Carolina.Responses due by 7/6/2020 (Payton, R.) |
| Filing 10 MOTION for Reconsideration /Objection re #7 Order on Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Tyrone D. Carolina. (Payton, R.) |
| Filing 9 MOTION to Appoint Counsel by Tyrone D. Carolina. (Payton, R.) |
|
Filing 7
ORDER denying #2 motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 05/20/2020. (Rosenberg, J.)
|
| Set Deadlines:Failure to file the filing fee within twenty (20) days from the date of this order will result in the dismissal of this actiion. Dismissal due by 6/9/2020 (Payton, R.) |
| Filing 8 MOTION to Amend re: #1 Complaint by Tyrone D. Carolina.Responses due by 6/9/2020 (Payton, R.) |
|
Filing 6
STANDING ORDER ON PRISONER ELECTRONIC FILING PROGRAM Signed by Judge Janet C. Hall on 05/12/2020.(Fazekas, J.)
|
|
Filing 5
STANDING PROTECTIVE ORDER Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 05/12/2020.(Fazekas, J.)
|
|
Filing 4
ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER FOR COUNSEL - PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 05/12/2020.(Fazekas, J.)
|
| Filing 3 PRISCS - Prisoner Trust Fund Account Statement by Tyrone D. Carolina. (Fazekas, J.) |
| Filing 2 PRISCS - MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Tyrone D. Carolina. (Fazekas, J.) |
| Filing 1 PRISCS - COMPLAINT against Daily, Ingrid Feder, Jusseaume, Malissa, Martin, Stepheny, filed by Tyrone D. Carolina.(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.
