Rosa v. Human Rights and Opportunities
| Alexander Rosa |
| Commission of Human Rights and Opportunities, Fairfield County, Hartford Co, Jamie Rubin, John Doe, John Doe 2, Jane Doe and Jane Doe 2 |
| 3:2022cv00893 |
| July 14, 2022 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| Sarah A L Merriam |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on September 22, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 22 AMENDED COMPLAINT against Fairfield County, Hartford Co, Jamie Rubin, John Doe, John Doe 2, Jane Doe, Jane Doe 2, filed by Alexander Rosa. (Attachments: #1 envelope)(Imbriani, Susan) |
| Filing 21 Letter from Alexander Rosa Dated 8/18/2022 Re: questioning the law (Attachments: #1 envelope) (Imbriani, Susan) |
Filing 20
ORDER denying #17 Motion for Reconsideration. Plaintiff has filed a motion asking the Court to reconsider its Initial Review Order. Plaintiff contends, essentially, that he is being held to a higher standard than should be applied to a self-represented inmate with minimal education. See Doc. #17 at 2 (asserting that plaintiff is "being held as a standard legal attorney to prepare a complaint and the plaintiff has no high school diploma and is uneducated with no license to practice law"). The Court understands how difficult it can be for a plaintiff to litigate a case without counsel, and particularly for an inmate to do so. The Court therefore construes the submissions of self-represented plaintiffs generously. But even self-represented plaintiffs must meet basic legal requirements. See Doc. #12 at 3."Motions for reconsideration shall not be routinely filed and shall satisfy the strict standard applicable to such motions. Such motions will generally be denied unless the movant can point to controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked in the initial decision or order." D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 7(c). "A motion for reconsideration is an extraordinary request that is granted only in rare circumstances, such as where the court failed to consider evidence or binding authority." Van Buskirk v. Utd. Grp. of Cos., Inc., 935 F.3d 49, 54 (2d Cir. 2019) (citation and quotation marks omitted). As the Court explained in its Initial Review Order, plaintiff has attempted to sue the CHRO under section 1983, but the CHRO is not subject to suit under that statute. See Doc. #12 at 4. The Court has done its best to explain to plaintiff the defects in his complaint, and has granted him leave to file an Amended Complaint if he believes he can correct those defects. Plaintiff has not pointed to any controlling law or information that the Court overlooked in issuing the Initial Review Order. Accordingly, the motion to reconsider is DENIED. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Sarah A. L. Merriam on 8/15/2022. (Katz, S.)
|
|
Filing 19
ORDER. Plaintiff has filed a "Letter to the Court" in response to a Rule 26 Meeting Report deadline that was subsequently marked as "Entered in Error." Doc. #14 at 1. Plaintiff also requests "to be appointed counsel." Id.As the Court has previously advised plaintiff in his other cases, the Court does not accept letters or letter motions. Any requests for relief must be filed in the form of a motion, and entitled as such, in full compliance with the Local Rules. Although plaintiff's letter contains a case caption, it is not in the form of a proper motion. The Court will not grant relief in response to letters.As plaintiff is aware, this case has been dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim. See Doc. #12 . If plaintiff seeks to amend his Complaint to attempt to state a claim, an Amended Complaint must be filed by October 3, 2022. See Doc. #18.It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Sarah A. L. Merriam on 8/15/2022. (Katz, S.)
|
|
Filing 18
ORDER granting, in part, and denying, in part, #16 Motion for Extension of Time for 60 days to file Amended Complaint.Plaintiff requests a 60-day extension of time to file an Amended Complaint "due to the multiple dockets and activity [he has]" in the state and federal courts. Doc. #16 at 1. The Local Rules provide: "All motions for extensions of time... will not be granted except for good cause." D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 7(b)(1). Delay due to the press of other business, such as managing other cases, does not constitute good cause to extend deadlines. See, e.g., Shemendera v. First Niagara Bank N.A., 288 F.R.D. 251, 253 (W.D.N.Y. 2012); Harnage v. Brennan, No. 3:16CV01659(AWT)(SALM), 2018 WL 2128379, at *4 (D. Conn. May 9, 2018).However, because of plaintiff's self-represented status, the Court GRANTS, in part, plaintiff's #16 Motion for an Extension of time to file the Amended Complaint. Plaintiff shall file an Amended Complaint by October 3, 2022. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Sarah A. L. Merriam on 8/15/2022. (Katz, S.)
|
| Filing 17 MOTION for Reconsideration re #12 Initial Review Order - Prisoner, by Alexander Rosa. (Attachments: #1 envelope)(Imbriani, Susan) |
| Filing 16 MOTION for Extension of Time for 60 days to file amended complaint by Alexander Rosa. (Attachments: #1 envelope)(Imbriani, Susan) |
|
Filing 15
ORDER denying #13 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Plaintiff has filed a motion seeking appointment of pro bono counsel in this matter. See Doc. #13 . 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(1) provides: "The court may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel." However, "[c]ivil litigants, unlike criminal defendants, do not have a constitutional right to the appointment of counsel." Mustafa v. Stanley, No. 3:19CV01780(VAB), 2020 WL 6536910, at *2 (D. Conn. Nov. 6, 2020). Rather, a district court has broad discretion in deciding whether to appoint pro bono counsel in a civil case. See Hodge v. Police Officers, 802 F.2d 58, 60 (2d Cir. 1986). The Second Circuit has cautioned the district courts against the routine appointment of counsel and has reiterated the importance of requiring an indigent plaintiff to demonstrate the likely merit of his claims 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). "[C]ounsel should not be appointed in a case where the merits of the indigent's claim are thin and his chances of prevailing are therefore poor." Carmona v. U.S. Bur. of Prisons, 243 F.3d 629, 632 (2d Cir. 2001). The Court has found that plaintiff's complaint lacks merit, and has ordered it dismissed, without prejudice. See Doc. #12 . This is not a case in which the Court believes that, with appointed counsel to assist, the claims could be more clearly stated so as to show likely merit. The Court cannot ask private attorneys to take on cases without compensation unless there is a very strong showing of the merit of the case. Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel is therefore DENIED, without prejudice. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Sarah A. L. Merriam on 8/5/2022. (Caffrey, A.) Modified to correct incorrect action type that was entered on 8/5/2022 (Caffrey, A.).
|
| Filing 14 Letter to the Court from Alexander Rosa Dated 8/1/22 (Attachments: #1 copy of envelope) (Oliver, T.) |
| Filing 13 MOTION to Appoint Counsel by Alexander Rosa. (Attachments: #1 copy of envelope) (Oliver, T.) |
|
Docket Entry Correction re 15 Order on Motion to Appoint Counsel. Corrected the incorrect action type that had been entered in error. Corrected to reflect: ORDER denying #13 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Plaintiff has filed a motion seeking appointment of pro bono counsel in this matter. See Doc. #13 . 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(1) provides: "The court may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel." However, "[c]ivil litigants, unlike criminal defendants, do not have a constitutional right to the appointment of counsel." Mustafa v. Stanley, No. 3:19CV01780(VAB), 2020 WL 6536910, at *2 (D. Conn. Nov. 6, 2020). Rather, a district court has broad discretion in deciding whether to appoint pro bono counsel in a civil case. See Hodge v. Police Officers, 802 F.2d 58, 60 (2d Cir. 1986). The Second Circuit has cautioned the district courts against the routine appointment of counsel and has reiterated the importance of requiring an indigent plaintiff to demonstrate the likely merit of his claims 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). "[C]ounsel should not be appointed in a case where the merits of the indigent's claim are thin and his chances of prevailing are therefore poor." Carmona v. U.S. Bur. of Prisons, 243 F.3d 629, 632 (2d Cir. 2001). The Court has found that plaintiff's complaint lacks merit, and has ordered it dismissed, without prejudice. See Doc. #12 . This is not a case in which the Court believes that, with appointed counsel to assist, the claims could be more clearly stated so as to show likely merit. The Court cannot ask private attorneys to take on cases without compensation unless there is a very strong showing of the merit of the case. Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel is therefore DENIED, without prejudice. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Sarah A. L. Merriam on 8/5/2022. (Caffrey, A.)
|
|
Filing 12
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER. For the reasons set forth in the attached Order, the #1 Complaint is DISMISSED, without prejudice to re-filing. Plaintiff shall carefully review the attached Order and comply with all deadlines and requirements therein. The Clerk of the Court shall mail a copy of this Initial Review Order to plaintiff at his address of record. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Sarah A. L. Merriam on 8/2/2022. (Katz, S.)
|
|
Filing 11
ORDER granting #2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis based on the financial information provided. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Sarah A. L. Merriam on 8/2/2022. (Katz, S.)
|
|
Filing 10
ORDER denying #9 Motion to Vacate E-Filing Program. The Court will not eliminate the prisoner e-filing system. Any future motions seeking to "vacate" the program will be summarily denied. Plaintiff may continue to send filings to the Court by mail, as he apparently prefers. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Sarah A. L. Merriam on 8/1/2022. (Katz, S.)
|
| Filing 9 MOTION to Vacate E-Filing Program by Alexander Rosa. Responses due by 8/22/2022 (Attachments: #1 copy of envelope) (Oliver, T.) |
| ENTERED IN ERROR Set Deadlines: Rule 26 Meeting Report due by 9/8/2022 (Caffrey, A.) Modified text to reflect entered in error on 7/27/2022 (Caffrey, A.). |
| Docket Entry Correction re Set Deadlines: Rule 26 Meeting Report. The Rule 26 Meeting Report deadline not yet set, this deadline was docketed in error on the wrong case. (Caffrey, A.) |
|
Filing 8
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 7/14/2022.(Caffrey, A.)
|
|
Filing 7
ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER FOR COUNSEL - PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER Signed by Judge Sarah A. L. Merriam on 7/14/2022. (Oliver, T.)
|
|
Filing 6
Prisoner E-Filing Standing Order on Prisoner Electronic Filing Program Signed by Judge Janet C. Hall on 7/14/2022. (Oliver, T.)
|
|
Filing 5
STANDING PROTECTIVE ORDER Signed by Judge Sarah A. L. Merriam on 7/14/2022. (Oliver, T.)
|
| Filing 4 Prisoner Trust Fund Account Statement by Alexander Rosa. (Oliver, T.) |
| Filing 3 Prisoner Authorization Form by Alexander Rosa. (Oliver, T.) |
| Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Alexander Rosa. (Oliver, T.) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Commission of Human Rights and Opportunities, filed by Alexander Rosa. (Attachments: #1 copy of envelope) (Oliver, T.) |
| Request for Clerk to issue summons as to Commission of Human Rights and Opportunities. (Oliver, T.) |
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.
