Staton v. Lamont et al
| Terrell Staton |
| Ned Lamont, John Bowen, Oullette, Nothe, Popec, Stephen Dargan, Carmen Sierra, Deborah Smith-Palmeri, Eric Ellison, Zelynette Caron, Mahboob Ashraf, Maria Bianchi, Margarita Rios, Such, Officer Clark, Joseph, Nick Rodriguez, Atty. Brown, Garfinkle, Stefan R. Underhill, Robert Richeson, Maurer Kathleen, Clark, Stephen R Underhill and Scanning Program - Robinson |
| 3:2022cv00854 |
| July 11, 2022 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| Vanessa L Bryant |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on November 28, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 25
ORDER denying #18 Plaintiff's Motion to Request Charge. Rule 7(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires "A request for a court order must be made by motion. The motion must (A) be in writing unless made during a hearing or trial; (B) state with particularity the grounds for seeking the order; and (C) state the relief sought." Plaintiff's motion neither states with particularity the grounds for seeking an order, nor states the relief sought. Therefore, the motion is denied for failing to comply with the rules. Signed by Judge Vanessa L. Bryant on 8/31/2022. (Burlingham, Corinne)
|
|
Filing 24
Order regarding #17 Plaintiff's Motion for Demand of Jury. The Court interprets Plaintiff's filing as a notice of jury demand under Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which does not require a response. To the extend Plaintiff is proposing a jury verdict form, such filing is premature. If this case goes to trial, the Plaintiff will be permitted to propose a verdict form then. Signed by Judge Vanessa L. Bryant on 8/31/2022. (Burlingham, Corinne)
|
|
Filing 23
ORDER denying without prejudice #15 #20 #21 Plaintiff's Emergency Motions for Restraining Order. The Court interprets Plaintiff's motions as motions for a temporary restraining order against the Connecticut Department of Corrections ("DOC") to release Plaintiff from custody. Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure only permit the Court to issue a temporary restraining order without written or oral notice to the adverse party or its attorney if: "(A) specific facts in an affidavit or verified complaint clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition; and (B) the movant's attorney certified in writing any efforts made to give notice and the reasons why is should not be required." Here, Plaintiff has not complied with the requirements under Rule 65 because he has not provided specific facts in an affidavit, let alone facts that show an immediate and irreparable injury. Plaintiff's motion does not explain the facts and circumstances justifying his claim that he is entitled to parole. For example, Plaintiff is inconsistent with when he became parole eligible. In addition, Plaintiff does not describe the parole process and whether he engaged in that process. Further, Plaintiff alleges no facts to support his conclusory claim that any of the defendants in this action conspired to deny him parole. A temporary restraining order is an extraordinary relief, and the Court cannot issue a such relief without a clear justification and compliance with the rules. Therefore, Plaintiff's motions for a temporary restraining order are denied. Signed by Judge Vanessa L. Bryant on 8/31/2022. (Burlingham, Corinne)
|
|
Filing 22
ORDER regarding #14 Plaintiff's "Motion to Introduce Evidence." Plaintiff's filing does not request the Court take any action and is thus not a "motion" as defined in the Local Rules. The Court interprets Plaintiff's filing as a notice to which response is not necessary. Signed by Judge Vanessa L. Bryant on 8/31/2022. (Burlingham, Corinne)
|
| Filing 21 MOTION for Expedited Pre-liminary Hearing for Temporary Restraining Order Injunction of Release #20 , (Attachments: #1 Envelope) (Velez, F.) |
| Filing 20 Emergency MOTION for Restraining Order as Documented Medical Reason for Not Receiving the Vaccine, by Terrell Staton. (Attachments: #1 Envelope) (Velez, F.) |
| Filing 19 NOTICE of Change of Address by Terrell Staton (Attachments: #1 envelope)(Corriette, M.) |
| Filing 18 MOTION to Request Charge and Joinder of Defendants Accompanied by the Introduction of Evidence, by Terrell Staton. (Attachments: #1 Envelope) (Velez, F.) |
| Filing 17 MOTION for Demand of Jury, by Terrell Staton. Responses due by 9/16/2022 (Attachments: #1 Envelope) (Velez, F.) |
| Filing 16 Report-Evidence, by Terrell Staton. (Attachments: #1 Envelope) (Velez, F.) |
| Filing 15 Emergency MOTION for Restraining Order from Custody of the D.O.C., by Terrell Staton. Responses due by 9/16/2022. (Attachments: #1 Attachment, #2 Envelope) (Velez, F.) |
| Filing 14 MOTION to Introduce As Evidence, by Terrell Staton. Responses due by 9/16/2022 (Attachments: #1 Exhibit) (Velez, F.) |
|
Filing 13
ORDER denying #10 Plaintiff's Motion to File the Designated Material Under Seal. Plaintiff's motion seeks two forms of relief. First, Plaintiff appears to request the Court seal the entirety of his complaint on the grounds that it contains statements relating to a medical condition. The Court cannot seal the entirety of the complaint because the references to the medical condition do not make up the entirety of the complaint. Plaintiff is permitted to refile his motion to seal with a redacted version of his complaint for the public docket, which redacts only the information entitled to sealing. Second, Plaintiff appears to request the Court file on his behalf material filed in a state court case and then provide that document with sealing status. Plaintiff, not the Court, has the burden of filing with this Court and on this docket any material he wishes for the Court to rely upon in rendering its decision. The Court will not collect and file that material for him. Plaintiff is directed to carefully review Local Rule of Civil Procedure 5 and only seek to seal material where a clear and compelling reason warrants sealing and sealing is narrowly tailored to serve those reasons. Signed by Judge Vanessa L. Bryant on 8/26/2022. (Burlingham, Corinne)
|
|
Filing 12
ORDER denying as moot #2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; GRANTING #8 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. If you change your address at any time during the litigation of this case, Local Rule 83.1(c)2 provides that you notify the court. Signed by Judge Thomas O. Farrish on 8/15/2022. (Corriette, M.)
|
|
Filing 11
ORDER sua sponte sealing #10 MOTION to File the Designated Material Under Seal because the materials to be sealed contain confidential information concerning Plaintiff's medical condition. Signed by Judge Vanessa L. Bryant on 8/12/2022.(Mullings, Ricardo)
|
| Filing 10 MOTION to File the Designated Material Under Seal by Terrell Staton. (Attachments: #1 Envelope) (Shafer, J.) |
| Filing 9 Prisoner Trust Fund Account Statement by Terrell Staton. (Shafer, J.) |
| Filing 8 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Terrell Staton. (Attachments: #1 Envelope) (Shafer, J.) |
|
Filing 7
NOTICE OF INSUFFICIENCY re: Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. Terrell Staton, a sentenced inmate at the Carl Robinson Correctional Institution, filed a civil action entitled Staton v. Commissioner of D.O.C. on October 21, 2021. Judge Bryant dismissed that case because, among other reasons, Mr. Staton lumped several unrelated and mis-joined claims into a single complaint. See Init. Review Order, Staton v. Commr, No. 21-cv-1302 (VLB), May 6, 2022. Judge Bryant did, however, allow Mr. Staton leave to refile his claims as separate actions. Evidently in response to that instruction, Mr. Staton has filed four new cases, which the Clerk of the Court docketed as Staton v. Lamont, No. 22-cv-854 (VLB), Staton v. Commr of Corrs., No. 22-cv-855 (VLB), Staton v. Shriver, No. 22-cv-860 (VAB), and Staton v. Gonzalez, No. 22-cv-861 (VLB). Mr. Staton did not pay the filing fee in any of the four cases.To proceed in forma pauperis in this District that is, to file a civil case without pre-paying the filing fee prisoners must file a completed Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis in a Civil Rights Action, along with a certified copy of their inmate trust account statement, showing balances and transactions for the six months preceding the filing of the complaint. See 28 U.S.C. 1915(b). In the Staton v. Lamont matter, Mr. Staton filed a completed application but no trust account statement. In the Staton v. Shriver matter, he not only failed to file a trust account statement; his application is also incomplete, because he did not complete and sign the funds withdrawal authorization on page four. In the Staton v. Gonzalez matter, he filed a trust account statement, but it was not certified by an administrator of inmate trust accounts; moreover, it was accompanied by an application not in his name, but rather in the name of his minor daughter, and it lacked a funds authorization in his name. In the Staton v. Commr of Corrs. matter, he filed neither an application nor a trust account statement.The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to mail four blank Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis in a Civil Rights Action forms to Mr. Staton at his address of record. Mr. Staton is directed to fill out a separate form for each of his four lawsuits, writing the case number of each suit on the first page of each application. Mr. Staton must fill out each form completely, and in particular he must sign the funds withdrawal authorization in each application, so that the Court can be sure that he really means to authorize the withdrawal of $1,400 ($350 x four lawsuits) from his trust account according to the schedule set forth in 28 U.S.C. 1915. Also, a trust account statement for the period January-June 2022 must be certified by an administrator of inmate trust accounts.Finally, if Mr. Staton genuinely wishes to bring the Staton v. Gonzalez matter on his daughters behalf as well as his own, he must include both his and his daughters financial information in that application. To provide complete financial information for his daughter, Mr. Staton must provide a statement of the financial resources of whoever is supporting her, whether that be the childs mother or some other custodian. See Fridman v. City of New York, 195 F. Supp. 2d 534, 537 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). Mr. Staton must comply with all of the above by August 15, 2022; if he does not, one or more of his cases may be dismissed. Signed by Judge Thomas O. Farrish on 7/26/2022.(Corriette, M.)
|
|
Filing 6
ENTERED IN ERROR Standing ORDER on Prisoner Electronic Filing Program Signed by Judge Janet C. Hall on 7/8/2022.(Barry, L) Modified on 7/12/2022 (Barry, L)
|
|
Filing 5
ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER FOR COUNSEL - PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER Signed by Judge Vanessa L. Bryant on 7/8/2022.(Barry, L)
|
|
Filing 4
Standing ORDER on Prisoner Electronic Filing Program Signed by Judge Janet C. Hall on 7/8/2022.(Barry, L)
|
|
Filing 3
Standing PROTECTIVE ORDER Signed by Judge Vanessa L. Bryant on 7/8/2022.(Barry, L)
|
| Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Terrell Staton. (Barry, L) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Mahboob Ashraf, Maria Bianchi, John Bowen, Brown, Zelynette Caron, Clark, Stephen Dargan, Eric Ellison, Garfinkle, Joseph, Maurer Kathleen, Ned Lamont, Nothe, Oullette, Popec, Robert Richeson, Margarita Rios, Nick Rodriguez, Carmen Sierra, Deborah Smith-Palmeri, Such, Stefan R. Underhill, filed by Terrell Staton. (Attachments: #1 Envelope)(Barry, L) |
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.
