Roman v. Quiros et al
| Jason A. Roman |
| Angel Quiros, Jesus Guaddrama, Kirsten Barone, Moore, Valetin, Colon, Cari Freston, Lu Jun, Marti Rothe, Campbell Stewart, Akina Richard, Tiffany Dyke, Viktorya Stork, Colleen Gallagher and Otero |
| 3:2022cv00911 |
| July 20, 2022 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| Sarah A L Merriam |
| Sarala V Nagala |
| Prisoner Petitions - Prison Conditions |
| 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on April 28, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 26
ORDER denying #25 Motion for Reconsideration. In his motion at ECF No. #25 , Plaintiff asks the Court to reconsider its order at ECF No. 21 granting in part his motion requesting copies, ECF No. #20 . Specifically, Plaintiff asks the Court to provide him with free copies of all the exhibits attached to his complaint, ECF No. #1 , as well as a free copy of his motion for a temporary restraining order, ECF No. #13 . The standard for granting a motion for reconsideration, however, is "strict," and "reconsideration will generally be denied unless the moving party can point to controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked - matters, in other words, that might reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion reached by the court." See Cho v. Blackberry Ltd., 991 F.3d 155, 170 (2d Cir. 2021). Here, Plaintiff has not pointed to any controlling decisions or data that the Court overlooked when it ruled on his motion requesting copies and, as a result, his motion for reconsideration is denied.As the Court noted in its order at ECF No. 21, in forma pauperis status does not entitle Plaintiff to free copies of the docket sheet or court documents. See United States v. Navarro, No. 10-CR-188-A, 2017 WL 343466, at *1 (W.D.N.Y. Jan. 24, 2017) (litigant's in forma pauperis status does not entitle litigant to a free copy of the docket sheet or other filings (citing 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(1), (c)); Cerilli v. Arnone, No. 3:11CV1822(SRU), 2012 WL 2872836, at *2 (D. Conn. July 10, 2012) (explaining that in forma pauperis status does not include a right to "free copies of documents or rulings"). In his motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff does not provide any controlling decisions that contradict this proposition. Instead, after acknowledging that he has some funds in his inmate account, Plaintiff argues that he would prefer not to spend his money on copies. Plaintiff also argues that he is serving a lengthy sentence and does not have a support system that can pay the filing fee or pick up the copies from the Court. None of these arguments constitute controlling decisions or data that would warrant reconsideration of the Court's previous order. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion is denied.The Court reiterates that if Plaintiff decides to seek copies of the exhibits that were attached to his complaint (100 pages) or his motion for temporary restraining order (18 pages), he may submit a request to the Clerk accompanied by the required copy fee of $.50 per page. Plaintiff need not pick up the copies from the Court. Rather, if he submits a request and the required fee, the copies will be mailed to him.Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 11/07/2022. (Kuegler, Adam)
|
| Filing 25 MOTION for Reconsideration of Partial Copies to Full Copies of Complaint, All Exhibits, and Temporary Restraining Order, by Jason A. Roman. (Mendez, D) |
| Filing 24 NOTICE of change of address by Jason A. Roman (Corriette, M.) |
| Set Deadline: Amended Pleadings due by 1/3/2023. (Bozek, M.) |
|
Filing 23
ORDER granting #22 Motion for Extension of Time. Plaintiff's deadline for filing an amended complaint is hereby extended until January 3, 2023. The Court is unlikely to grant any further extensions of this deadline. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 10/24/2022. (Kuegler, Adam)
|
|
Filing 21
ORDER granting in part #20 Motion Requesting Copies. In forma pauperis status does not entitle Plaintiff to free copies of the docket sheet or court documents. See United States v. Navarro, No. 10-CR-188-A, 2017 WL 343466, at *1 (W.D.N.Y. Jan. 24, 2017) (litigant's in forma pauperis status does not entitle litigant to a free copy of the docket sheet or other filings (citing 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(1), (c)); Cerilli v. Arnone, No. 3:11CV1822(SRU), 2012 WL 2872836, at *2 (D. Conn. July 10, 2012) (explaining that in forma pauperis status does not include a right to "free copies of documents or rulings"). As a prisoner incarcerated at a Connecticut Department of Correction facility, Plaintiff was required to submit his documents using the Prisoner Electronic Filing Program, see CTAO 16-21, Standing Order on Prisoner Electronic Filing Program, but he chose to ignore this requirement. If Plaintiff had used the Prisoner Electronic Filing Program, he could have retained the original copies of the documents he now requests. Nonetheless, the Court finds it is appropriate to provide a copy of Plaintiff's complaint to him, as it will be essential for Plaintiff to review if he seeks to file an amended complaint in this matter. The Clerk is directed to mail a copy of ECF No. #1 to Plaintiff at his address of record. If Plaintiff seeks copies of the exhibits that were attached to his complaint (100 pages) or his motion for temporary restraining order (18 pages), he may submit a request to the Clerk accompanied by the required copy fee of $.50 per page. As of July of 2022, Plaintiff's inmate account statement showed a balance sufficient to cover the copy costs of these documents. See ECF No. #4 . Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 10/19/2022. (Kuegler, Adam)
|
| Filing 22 MOTION for Extension of Time until 60 days, by Jason A. Roman. (Mendez, D) |
| Filing 20 Motion Requesting Copies, by Jason A. Roman. (Mendez, D) |
|
Filing 19
ORDER OF TRANSFER. Case reassigned to Judge Sarala V. Nagala for all further proceedings. Signed by Clerk on 10/5/2022.(Hushin, Z.)
|
|
Filing 18
ORDER granting #17 Motion for Extension of Time until 11/1/2022 to File an Amended Complaint. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Sarah A. L. Merriam on 9/20/2022. (Katz, S.)
|
| Filing 17 MOTION for Extension of Time until 11/1/2022 to File an Amended Complaint by Jason A. Roman. (Oliver, T.) |
| Filing 16 NOTICE. All parties are advised that they may elect to consent to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge. United States Magistrate Judges do not conduct felony criminal trials; as a result, parties are often able to schedule a jury trial before a Magistrate Judge sooner and with more flexibility than a jury trial before a District Judge. If all parties consent to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge, the parties should complete and file the attached consent form. If any party does not consent, that information should not be conveyed to the Court, and no consent form should be filed. The Court notes that ordinarily, where the parties consent to the jurisdiction of a Magistrate Judge, any Magistrate Judge who has previously been involved in confidential settlement discussions would not be assigned to hear the trial. Signed by Judge Sarah A. L. Merriam on 9/20/2022.(Caffrey, A.) |
| Set Deadlines: Amended Pleadings due by 11/1/2022. (Katz, S.) |
|
Filing 15
ORDER. Plaintiff has filed a #13 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, which requests the Court "to place this order, so that [plaintiff] may be housed under single cell status, and to be placed on a lower bunk restriction." Doc. #13 at 1. "The purpose of a temporary restraining order is to preserve an existing situation in statu quo until the court has an opportunity to pass upon the merits of the demand for a preliminary injunction." Garcia v. Yonkers Sch. Dist., 561 F.3d 97, 107 (2d Cir. 2009).Plaintiff seeks affirmative relief from the Court, rather than the preservation of an existing situation. Furthermore, the Complaint has now been dismissed, without prejudice to re-filing. See Doc. #14 . Accordingly, plaintiff's #13 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order is DENIED, without prejudice to re-filing if plaintiff files an Amended Complaint that is sufficient to proceed to service of process.It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Sarah A. L. Merriam on 8/31/2022. (Katz, S.)
|
|
Filing 14
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 8/31/2022. (Katz, S.)
|
| Filing 13 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order by Jason A. Roman. (Attachments: #1 copy of envelope) (Oliver, T.) |
|
Filing 12
ORDER denying as premature, without prejudice to re-filing, #5 Motion to Appoint Counsel.Plaintiff has filed a motion seeking the appointment of pro bono counsel in this matter. See Doc. #5 . 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). At this early stage, plaintiff has not demonstrated the likely merit of his claims. The Court is in the process of reviewing the sufficiency of the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915A. No defendants have been served, and no defendants have appeared. The Court is mindful of the difficulties faced by parties when 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. The Court has not yet assessed the merit of plaintiff's claims. Accordingly, plaintiff's #5 motion to appoint counsel is DENIED, as premature.Plaintiff may re-file his motion after the Court conducts its initial review of the Complaint and, if the Complaint is permitted to proceed, after defendants appear in this case. Any renewed motion must make a strong showing of the likely merit of plaintiff's claims.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. Signed by Judge Thomas O. Farrish on 8/1/22. (Pesta, J.)
|
|
Filing 9
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 7/20/2022.(Caffrey, A.)
|
|
Filing 8
ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER FOR COUNSEL - PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER Signed by Judge Sarah A. L. Merriam on 7/20/2022. (Oliver, T.)
|
|
Filing 7
Prisoner E-Filing Standing Order on Prisoner Electronic Filing Program Signed by Judge Janet C. Hall on 7/20/2022. (Oliver, T.)
|
|
Filing 6
STANDING PROTECTIVE ORDER Signed by Judge Sarah A. L. Merriam on 7/20/2022. (Oliver, T.)
|
| Filing 5 MOTION to Appoint Counsel by Jason A. Roman. (Oliver, T.) |
| Filing 4 Prisoner Trust Fund Account Statement by Jason A. Roman. (Oliver, T.) |
| Filing 3 Prisoner Authorization Form by Jason A. Roman. (Oliver, T.) |
| Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Jason A. Roman. (Oliver, T.) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Kirsten Barone, Colon, Tiffany Dyke, Cari Freston, Colleen Gallagher, Jesus Guaddrama, Lu Jun, Moore, Otero, Angel Quiros, Akina Richard, Marti Rothe, Campbell Stewart, Viktorya Stork, Valetin, filed by Jason A. Roman. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Exhibit C, #4 Exhibit D, #5 copy of envelope) (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.
