Jusino v. Pieri
| Jose A. Jusino |
| Lalitha Pieri |
| 3:2022cv00092 |
| January 18, 2022 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| Sarah A L Merriam |
| Prisoner Petitions - Prison Conditions |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 29, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 11
ELECTRONIC SUMMONS ISSUED in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 and LR 4 as to *Lalitha Pieri* with answer to complaint due within *21* days. Attorney *Jose A. Jusino #320660* *MACDOUGALL-WALKER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION* *1153 East Street South* *Suffield, CT 06080*. (Oliver, T.)
|
|
Filing 10
Standing Order re: Initial Discovery Disclosures. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 2/15/2022. (Oliver, T.)
|
|
Filing 9
ORDER. If plaintiff changes his address at any time during the litigation of this case, he MUST file a Notice of Change of Address with the Court. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of the case. Plaintiff must give notice of a new address even if he remains incarcerated. He should write "PLEASE NOTE MY NEW ADDRESS" on the notice. It is not enough to just put a new address on a filing without indicating that it is a new address. If plaintiff fails to advise the Court of a change of address, this case may be dismissed. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Sarah A. L. Merriam on 2/15/2022.(Caffrey, A.)
|
|
Filing 8
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER. The Court has reviewed the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915A. Accepting the well-pleaded allegations of the Complaint as true, as it is required to do, the Court finds that the Complaint should not be dismissed at this stage for failure to state a claim. Reading the Complaint generously, it alleges that Dr. Pieri: failed to obtain information regarding plaintiff's history of significant mental illness; refused to perform an assessment or evaluation of plaintiff; and deliberately denied plaintiff appropriate care out of malice because plaintiff complained about the lack of treatment. Such allegations are sufficient, at this stage, to permit the matter to proceed to service of process on the sole count of deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, in the official capacity for injunctive relief, and in the individual capacity for damages. This Order is without prejudice to defendant filing a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b). Plaintiff is responsible for serving the Summons and Complaint on Dr. Pieri in both official and individual capacities. Service must be made separately as to each capacity. The Court and the Marshal Service will not serve the Complaint, because plaintiff does not proceed in this matter in forma pauperis. Plaintiff must make arrangements for service himself. Plaintiff may use any legal method for service of process, such as a private process server. Service must be made within 90 days of this Order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4, or the case may be dismissed. The Clerk shall mail the appropriate forms to plaintiff for this purpose. A copy of the District's Guide for Self-Represented Litigants will also be mailed to plaintiff. The Court directs his attention to pages 8 and 9, in particular, regarding service.Failure to properly serve the defendant within 90 days of this Order may result in the dismissal of this action.It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Sarah A. L. Merriam on 2/15/2022.(Caffrey, A.)
|
|
Filing 7
Plaintiff has filed a motion seeking the appointment of pro bono counsel in this matter. See Doc. #6 . The Second Circuit has cautioned the district courts against the routine appointment of counsel and has reiterated the importance of requiring a plaintiff to meet certain requirements before counsel is appointed. See, e.g., Ferrelli v. River Manor Health Care Ctr., 323 F.3d 196, 203-04 (2d Cir. 2003); Hendricks v. Coughlin, 114 F.3d 390, 393 (2d Cir. 1997). Plaintiff here has met none of the requirements for seeking appointed counsel. The statute applicable to actions brought in forma pauperis permits the Court to "request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel." 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(1). Plaintiff does not proceed in forma pauperis in this matter; he merely alleges that he "is unable to afford counsel legal fees." Doc. #6 at 1. Plaintiff must provide a financial affidavit demonstrating his inability to retain counsel, before the Court will consider appointment. Plaintiff has not demonstrated that his claims have likely merit; indeed, the Court has not yet even completed an initial review permitting his claims to proceed. If some or all of the claims are permitted to proceed, that would not be sufficient to meet this standard. "Even where the claim is not frivolous, counsel is often unwarranted where the indigent's chances of success are extremely slim." Hodge v. Police Officers, 802 F.2d 58, 60 (2d Cir. 1986) (citation and quotation marks omitted). Plaintiff also "has not demonstrated that he is unable to secure legal assistance or representation on his own[.]" Gulley v. Dzurenda, 686 F. Supp. 2d 173, 174 (D. Conn. 2010). He merely asserts that he has tried in the past to secure counsel in other cases, and failed. See Doc. #6 at 2. That is insufficient. The Court notes that plaintiff is not limited in seeking counsel to the attorneys listed on the attachments to his motion. The Court is mindful of the difficulties faced by a party litigating an action without an attorney, particularly when that party is incarcerated. However, the Court can only impose upon private attorneys to give their time and efforts without compensation in cases where the plaintiff has demonstrated that the claims asserted have likely merit. Plaintiff has not done so here. Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel is therefore DENIED, without prejudice. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Sarah A. L. Merriam on 2/9/2022. (Teague, J.)
|
|
Filing 6
MOTION to Appoint Counsel by Jose A. Jusino. (Oliver, T.)
|
|
Filing fee received from Jose A. Jusino: $402.00, receipt number CTXB00012696. (Fazekas, J.)
|
|
Filing 5
ORDER. All counsel and self-represented parties are advised that any requests for relief, including the rescheduling of conferences or hearings that have been calendared on ECF, must be made by filing of a motion on the docket, in full compliance with all applicable Federal and Local Rules. Relief from deadlines, orders, and calendars may not be obtained by calling or emailing chambers staff or the Clerk's Office. Court staff cannot provide advice or guidance, and ex parte communications with the Court are generally improper. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Sarah A. L. Merriam on 1/19/2022.(Caffrey, A.)
|
|
Filing 4
STANDING ORDER ON PRISONER ELECTRONIC FILING PROGRAM Signed by Judge Janet C. Hall on 01/18/2022.(Fazekas, J.)
|
|
Filing 3
STANDING PROTECTIVE ORDER Signed by Judge Sarah A. L. Merriam on 01/18/2022.(Fazekas, J.)
|
|
Filing 2
ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER FOR COUNSEL - PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER Signed by Judge Sarah A. L. Merriam on 01/18/2022.(Fazekas, J.)
|
|
Filing 1
PRISCS - COMPLAINT against Lalitha Pieri, filed by Jose A. Jusino. (Attachments: #1 Envelope)(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
| Search for this case: Jusino v. Pieri | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Jose A. Jusino | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: Lalitha Pieri | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
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.
