Goode v. Connecticut Department of Correction et al
| Jason Goode |
| Angel Quiros, Rollin Cook, Scott Semple, Roger Bowles, Craig Washington, Tuttle, Juan Melendez and Connecticut Department of Correction |
| 3:2023cv00438 |
| April 6, 2023 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| Kari A Dooley |
| Thomas O Farrish |
| 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 June 1, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 16
ORDER denying #13 Motion for Order Directing Defendants to Mail Plaintiff's Court E-Filing Receipts. Plaintiff's motion outlines his grievances regarding the conduct of unnamed Department of Correction ("DOC") personnel in their handling of his mail from the Court. He seeks an order directing Defendants to process Court correspondence in a particular manner. The Complaint is undergoing initial review. The Defendants, yet to be identified, have not been served and have not appeared. Further, it is unclear whether the persons against whom Plaintiff seeks this mandatory injunction are even named defendants, which is generally a prerequisite to seeking injunctive relief. See Tobin v. Doe, No. 3:04-CV-952 (SRU), 2006 WL 680507, at *3 (D. Conn. Mar. 15, 2006) ("Because the prison officials and medical personnel at Corrigan Correctional Institution against whom Tobin seeks injunctive relief are not parties to this action, the court does not have in personam jurisdiction over them.... Thus, the court cannot enjoin their actions"). Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion fails to meet the rigors for injunctive relief. See N. Am. Soccer League, LLC v. U.S. Soccer Fed'n, Inc., 883 F.3d 32, 37 (2d Cir. 2018) ("A party seeking a preliminary injunction must show (1) irreparable harm; (2) either a likelihood of success on the merits or both serious questions on the merits and a balance of hardships decidedly favoring the moving party; and (3) that a preliminary injunction is in the public interest. Because mandatory injunctions disrupt the status quo, a party seeking one must meet a heightened legal standard by showing a clear or substantial likelihood of success on the merits." (citations and quotations omitted)). Plaintiff is cautioned that the mere fact that the Plaintiff has litigation pending before this Court does not serve to immerse the Court in the day-to-day decisions of the DOC relating to the manner and means of his incarceration. See Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 547 (1979); Fisher v. Goord, 981 F. Supp. 140, 167 (W.D.N.Y. 1997) ("In the prison context, a request for injunctive relief must always be viewed with great caution so as not to immerse the federal judiciary in the management of state prisons."). Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion is denied. Signed by Judge Kari A. Dooley on 6/1/2023. (Stamegna, Ashley)
|
|
Filing 15
ORDER granting in part and denying in part #2 Motion to Seal Exhibits to Complaint. Plaintiff moves to seal the Factual Allegations section and Exhibits 1 through 4 of his Complaint, which were separately docketed under seal at ECF No. #3 . Plaintiff asserts that those documents contain "protected, sensitive health information." Mot. to Seal, ECF No. 2. "A complaint, including its attachments... is clearly a judicial document." Morgan v. Dzurenda, No. 3:14CV966 SRU, 2014 WL 5798696, at *1 (D. Conn. Nov. 4, 2014). Judicial documents may only be sealed "when a judge makes specific findings on the record demonstrating that closure is essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest." Id. (internal quotations omitted). The Court finds a clear and compelling reason for sealing Exhibit 1 insofar as the document is a medical record that contains protected personal health information. Spring v. Allegany-Limestone Cent. Sch. Dist., No. 14-CV-476S, 2021 WL 4166628, at *1 (W.D.N.Y. Sept. 14, 2021) ("[C]ourts in this circuit regularly allow medical records to be filed under seal, finding that parties have a strong privacy interest in their medical information."). The Court further finds that sealing this Exhibit is narrowly tailored to protect this information from unnecessary public disclosure and that Plaintiff's interest in keeping this information confidential outweighs the public's interest in access to this information. See id. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to seal Exhibit 1 is granted.Exhibits 2 and 3, which are scanned pages from a textbook, do not contain protected personal health information regarding Plaintiff or any other individual, and the Court is unable to identify any other "specific and substantial reasons for sealing such material." Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41, 50 (2d Cir. 2019). Likewise, Exhibit 4, which is an Inmate Grievance Appeal Form submitted by Plaintiff to the Connecticut Department of Correction, contains only a small amount of personal health information that is also contained in the unsealed Complaint. See Grossberg v. Fox Corp., No. 23-CV-2368 (JMF), 2023 WL 2612262, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 23, 2023) ("[C]ourts routinely deny sealing requests where, as here, the information to be sealed is already publicly available."). The Court therefore finds that sealing the document is not narrowly tailored to protect the small amount of personal medical information contained in the document from unnecessary public disclosure. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to seal Exhibits 2, 3, and 4 is denied. Finally, to the extent that Plaintiff seeks to seal portions of his Complaint, that request is denied. Plaintiff fails to allege with particularity what information in the Factual Allegations section of his Complaint is protected. See Keenan v. Town of Gates, 414 F. Supp. 2d 295, 296 (W.D.N.Y. 2006) (denying request to seal complaint where the plaintiff alleged that it contained protected medical information but failed to "identif[y] any such information with any particularity"). Further, courts have "often declined to seal personal information when it relates to allegations made in the complaint and filings and 'necessary to or helpful in resolving a motion.'" Ramirez v. Temin & Co., Inc., No. 20 CIV. 6258 (ER), 2020 WL 6781222, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 18, 2020) (quoting Giuffre v. Maxwell, 325 F. Supp. 3d 428, 442 (S.D.N.Y. 2018)). Accordingly, Plaintiff is directed to file unsealed copies of Exhibits 2, 3, and 4 on the public docket. As Plaintiff has not moved to seal Exhibits 5 and 6, which were also docketed under seal at ECF No. #3 , Plaintiff is directed to file unsealed copies of Exhibits 5 and 6 on the public docket.Signed by Judge Kari A. Dooley on 6/1/2023. (Stamegna, Ashley)
|
|
Filing 14
ORDER granting #4 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 4/21/2023. (Corriette, M.)
|
| Filing 13 MOTION for Order Directing Defendants to Mail Plaintiff's Court E-filing Receipts by Jason Goode. (Fanelle, N.) |
| Filing 12 Prisoner Trust Fund Account Statement by Jason Goode. (Fanelle, N.) |
| Filing 11 NOTICE by Jason Goode re #10 NOTICE OF INSUFFICIENCY. (Fanelle, N.) |
| Filing 10 NOTICE OF INSUFFICIENCY. The plaintiff has filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis; in other words, he seeks to commence a federal lawsuit without pre-paying the filing fee. A federal law, 28 U.S.C. 1915, permits him to do so if, among other things, he files a certified copy of his inmate trust account statement for the six month period preceding his complaint. In this case, the plaintiff filed a copy of his inmate trust account statement, but it is not certified. It is also not for the full six month period preceding the complaint. Therefore, the plaintiff is directed to file with the Clerk of the Court a certified copy of his inmate trust account statement covering at least the period from October 5, 2023 to April 5, 2023. If he does not do so by April 28, 2023, his case may be dismissed. Signed by Judge Thomas O. Farrish on 4/12/2023.(Corriette, M.) |
|
Filing 9
ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER FOR COUNSEL - PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER Signed by Judge Kari A. Dooley on 4/6/2023. (Fanelle, N.)
|
|
Filing 8
Prisoner E-Filing Standing Order on Prisoner Electronic Filing Program. Signed by Judge Janet C. Hall on 4/6/2023. (Fanelle, N.)
|
|
Filing 7
STANDING PROTECTIVE ORDER Signed by Judge Kari A. Dooley on 4/6/2023. (Fanelle, N.)
|
| Filing 6 Notice: Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1, a 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 4/6/2023.(Imbriani, Susan) |
| Filing 5 Prisoner Trust Fund Account Statement by Jason Goode. (Imbriani, Susan) |
| Filing 4 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Jason Goode. (Imbriani, Susan) |
| Filing 3 Sealed Document: Exhibits by Jason Goode re #1 Complaint. (Imbriani, Susan) |
| Filing 2 MOTION to Seal Exhibits to Complaint by Jason Goode. (Imbriani, Susan) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Roger Bowles, Connecticut Department of Correction, Rollin Cook, Juan Melendez, Angel Quiros, Scott Semple, Tuttle, Craig Washington, filed by Jason Goode.(Imbriani, Susan) |
| Judge Kari A. Dooley and Judge Thomas O. Farrish 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.
