Whipper v. Green et al
| Alphonso Whipper |
| Green, Roach, Santiago, Cambra, Chonobry, Pierce, Carlos Nunez, Kimberly Reis and Dan McGloin |
| 3:2023cv00027 |
| January 9, 2023 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| Sarala V Nagala |
| S Dave Vatti |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on August 23, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 16
ORDER denying #15 Motion to Reset Deadline. Plaintiff's motion appears to be requesting an extension of time to allow the Court to rule on his previously filed motion for reconsideration. The Court entered an order denying his motion for reconsideration on February 21, ECF No. 14. Thus, Plaintiff's motion is denied. Because Plaintiff's motion was dated February 23, two days after the order denying the motion for reconsideration, the Court is uncertain whether Plaintiff has received a copy of the order denying his motion for reconsideration. The Court thus sua sponte extends Plaintiff's deadline to pay the required filing fee to March 17, 2023. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail copies of both this order and the Court's order at ECF No. 14 to Plaintiff. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 3/2/23. (Marks, Joshua)
|
| Filing 15 Plaintiff's MOTION To Reset Deadline #12 Order on Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, by Alphonso Whipper. (Mendez, D) |
|
Filing 14
ORDER denying #13 Motion for Reconsideration. Plaintiff has filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court's order denying him leave to proceed in forma pauperis, in large part explaining that he never intended to avoid paying the filing fee but, rather, sought to extend the payments over time. Additionally, Plaintiff has attempted to explain some of the recent expenditures in his prisoner trust account and inform the Court that he has had difficulty affording the costs to effect service in prior cases. For the reasons that follow, the Court denies Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration, but the Court also construes the motion as a request that the Court order service to be effected by the U.S. Marshals Service pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3), if Plaintiff's complaint proceeds past initial review. "The standard for granting [reconsideration] 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." Van Buskirk v. United Grp. of Cos., Inc., 935 F.3d 49, 54 (2d Cir. 2019); see also D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 7(c)1; Cho v. Blackberry Ltd., 991 F.3d 155, 170 (2d Cir. 2021) (cleaned up) (reconsideration warranted "only when the party identifies an intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice"). A motion for reconsideration is "not a vehicle for relitigating old issues, presenting the case under new theories, securing a rehearing on the merits, or otherwise taking a second bite at the apple." Analytical Surveys, Inc. v. Tonga Partners, L.P., 684 F.3d 36, 52 (2d Cir. 2012) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). For the following reasons, Plaintiff's motion is denied. Here, Plaintiff has not provided any controlling case law or new evidence that the Court overlooked in its original order. In fact, Plaintiff admits that he can and will pay the filing fee in full if the Court orders that he do so. The Court would like to make clear that it appreciates Plaintiff's explanation regarding how he has spent the money in his prisoner trust account, including that he has spent some of it on legal fees. Nevertheless, as the Plaintiff has admitted he can afford to pay the filing fee, he must do so before his case can proceed. The Court now turns to Plaintiff's discussion of the difficulties he has faced serving defendants in prior civil cases. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3) allows the Court to "order that service be made by a United States marshal or deputy marshal or by a person specially appointed by the court" upon request by a plaintiff. Here, Plaintiff has made clear that one of the reasons he requested IFP status is that he would not have to bear the costs of effecting service. The Court interprets this statement as a motion for an order under Rule 4(c)(3), which the Court will defer until it determines whether the case will proceed past initial review. It is thus ordered:Plaintiff shall pay the required filing fee no later than March 3, 2023.Upon receipt of the filing fee, the Court shall conduct an initial review of the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915A. If the Court determines that any or all of Plaintiff's claims shall continue, the Court will enter any appropriate orders regarding service of the complaint at that time. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 2/21/23. (Marks, Joshua)
|
| Filing 13 MOTION for Reconsideration re #12 Order on Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis,, by Alphonso Whipper. (Mendez, D) |
| Set Deadline: Filing Fee or Dismissal due by 2/8/2023. (Bozek, M.) |
|
Filing 12
For the reasons discussed in the attached order, Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis #2 is DENIED. All further proceedings in this matter shall be held in abeyance for twenty (21) days pending Plaintiff's delivery of the filing fee in the amount of $402 (money order or bank check made payable to the Clerk of Court) to the Clerk's Office, 915 Lafayette Boulevard, Bridgeport, CT 06604. Failure to tender the filing fee by February 8, 2023, will result in the dismissal of this action. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 1/18/23. (Marks, Joshua)
|
|
Filing 11
ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER FOR COUNSEL - PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 1/9/2023. (Mendez, D)
|
|
Filing 10
Prisoner E-Filing Standing Order. Signed by Judge Janet C. Hall on 1/9/2023. (Mendez, D)
|
|
Filing 9
STANDING PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 1/9/2023. (Mendez, D)
|
| Filing 8 PROPOSED ORDER re #6 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Alphonso Whipper. (Imbriani, Susan) |
| Filing 7 DECLARATION in Support of #6 Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by Alphonso Whipper. (Imbriani, Susan) |
| Filing 6 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction AND MEMORANDUM of Law in Support of Plaintiff's Motion filed by Alphonso Whipper. (Imbriani, Susan) Modified on 1/9/2023 to change to motion event. (Imbriani, Susan). |
| Filing 5 Notice: Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1 and Local Rule 7.1, any nongovernmental corporate party must electronically file a disclosure statement that identifies any parent corporation and any publicly held corporation owning 10% or more of its stock or states that there is no such corporation. Such disclosure statement must be filed with a party's first appearance, pleading, petition, motion, response, or other request addressed to the Court and must be supplemented if any required information changes during the case. Signed by Clerk on 1/9/2023.(Imbriani, Susan) |
| Filing 4 Prisoner Trust Fund Account Statement by Alphonso Whipper. (Imbriani, Susan) |
| Filing 3 Prisoner Authorization Form by Alphonso Whipper. (Imbriani, Susan) |
| Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Alphonso Whipper. (Attachments: #1 envelope)(Imbriani, Susan) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Cambra, Chonobry, Green, Dan McGloin, Carlos Nunez, Pierce, Kimberly Reis, Roach, Santiago, filed by Alphonso Whipper. (Attachments: #1 envelope)(Imbriani, Susan) |
| Judge Sarala V. Nagala and Judge S. Dave Vatti added. (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.
