Baltas v. Bowers et al
| Joe Baltas |
| Shannon Bowers, Robert Martin, Francis, John Doe, Dave, Jerikah, Nicholas Briatico, Damien Doran, Daniel Dougherty, Sara Schauer and Francesco Lupis |
| 3:2023cv00764 |
| June 13, 2023 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| Victor A Bolden |
| Robert A Richardson |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on April 26, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 19 NOTICE - Waiver of service of summons returned, but signature is illegible. (Imbriani, Susan) |
| Filing 18 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed as to Robert Martin waiver sent on 7/31/2023, answer due 9/29/2023. (Imbriani, Susan) |
Filing 17
ORDER. The Court considers #16 Plaintiffs Objection to the Court's Denial of his Motion for Prejudgment Remedy as a motion for reconsideration, and under the strict standard for reconsideration, Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995), the Court finds the Plaintiff's filing insufficient. "The standard for granting [a motion for 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." Shrader at 257; see also Virgin Atl. Airways, Ltd. v. Nat'l Mediation Bd., 956 F.2d 1245, 1255 (2d Cir. 1992) ("where litigants have once battled for the court's decision, they should neither be required, nor without good reason permitted, to battle for it again") (citations omitted).Here, Mr. Baltas argues that the Court denied his application for a prejudgment remedy without holding an evidentiary hearing. ECF No. 16. But "an evidentiary hearing is only necessary if there exist 'genuine issues concerning material facts.'" New England Health Care Emps. Welfare Fund v. iCare Mgmt., LLC, 792 F. Supp. 2d 269, 275 (D. Conn. 2011). And, as the Court made clear in its Initial Review Order: "While the Court has determined that Mr. Baltas has alleged sufficient facts to state a plausible claim for relief, [the] Court cannot determine at this time the likelihood that Mr. Baltas will prevail and, even if he does, that judgment will enter in this amount." Initial Review Order at 25, ECF No. 12. In other words, Mr. Baltas failed to provide allegations sufficient to consider the relief requested, much less have a hearing regarding any such relief. Signed by Judge Victor A. Bolden on 08/10/23. (Rafla-Yuan, Deanna)
|
| Filing 16 OBJECTION re #12 Order on Motion for Prejudgment Remedy filed by Joe Baltas. (Imbriani, Susan) |
| Filing 15 NOTICE by Joe Baltas (Imbriani, Susan) |
| REQUEST FOR WAIVER of Service sent to all defendants on 7/31/2023. Waiver of Service due by 9/4/2023 (Imbriani, Susan) |
|
Filing 14
Standing Order re: Initial Discovery Disclosures Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 7/27/2023.(Imbriani, Susan)
|
| Filing 13 Docket Entry Correction re #12 Initial Review Order. Replacement PDF added, and year dates for discovery and summary judgment updated to reflect due in the year 2024. (Murphy, Tatihana) |
|
Filing 12
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER. Based on the Court's initial review,All conspiracy claims, all claims for violation of 18 U.S.C. 241, 242, 271, 371, and 1519; all claims under 42 U.S.C. 1981, 1985, 1986, and 1988; all federal claims for spoliation or destruction of evidence and violation of the federal FOIA; and the state law claims for violation of the Connecticut FOIA and intentional spoliation of evidence are DISMISSED under 28 U.S.C. 1915A(b)(1).The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Baltas' claims for violation of Article first, sections 1, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, and 20 of the Connecticut Constitution, and his state law claims for violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. 18-96b(g).The case will proceed on the First Amendment retaliation claim against Defendants Bowers and Francis, the Eighth Amendment claim for use of excessive force against Defendants Bowers and Officer Does 1-5, the Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to medical and mental health needs against Defendants Bowers, Martin, Briatico, Dave, Jerikah, Doran, Dougherty, Schauer, and Lupis, and the state law claims for assault and battery against Defendants Bowers and Officer Does 1-5.Mr. Baltas' motions seeking prejudgment remedy ECF Nos. #4 , #5 and limited early discovery ECF No. #11 are DENIED.The Court enters the following additional orders.(1)The Clerk of Court shall contact the Department of Correction Office of Legal Affairs to ascertain current service addresses for defendants Bowers, Francis, Martin, Briatico, Dave, Jerikah, Doran, Dougherty, Schauer, and Lupis, mail a waiver of service of process request packet containing the Complaint and this Order to each defendant at the address by August 25, 2023, and report to the Court on the status of the waiver request by September 1, 2023. If any Defendant fails to return the waiver request, the Clerk of Court shall arrange for in-person service by the U.S. Marshals Service on Defendant in his or her individual capacity and the defendant shall be required to pay the cost of such service.(2)The Clerk of Court shall send Plaintiff a copy of this Order.(3)The Clerk of Court shall send a courtesy copy of the Complaint and this Order to the Connecticut Attorney General and the Department of Correction Office of Legal Affairs.(4) Defendants shall file their response to the complaint, either an Answer or motion to dismiss, by November 3, 2023. If they choose to file an Answer, they shall admit or deny the allegations and respond to the cognizable claim recited above. They also may include all additional defenses permitted by the Federal Rules.(5)Discovery, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 through 37, shall be completed by April 5, 2024. Discovery requests need not be filed with the court.(6) All motions for summary judgment shall be filed by June 7, 2024.(7)Under Local Civil Rule 7(a), a nonmoving party must respond to a dispositive motion within twenty-one (21) days of the date the motion was filed. If no response is filed, or the response is not timely, the dispositive motion can be granted absent objection.(8)If Plaintiff changes his address at any time during the litigation of this case, Local Court Rule 83.1(c)2 provides that he MUST notify the court. Failure to do so can result in the dismissal of the case. Plaintiff must give notice of a new address even if he is incarcerated. Plaintiff should write PLEASE NOTE MY NEW ADDRESS on the notice. It is not enough to just put the new address on a letter without indicating that it is a new address. If Plaintiff has more than one pending case, he should indicate all the case numbers in the notification of change of address. Plaintiff should also notify Defendants or the attorney for Defendants of his new address. (9)Plaintiff shall utilize the Prisoner E-filing Program when filing documents with the court. Plaintiff is advised that the Program may be used only to file documents with the court. As local court rules provide that discovery requests are not filed with the court, discovery requests must be served on Defendants' counsel by regular mail.(10)The Clerk of Court shall immediately enter the District of Connecticut Standing Order Re: Initial Discovery Disclosures concerning cases initiated by self-represented inmates and shall send a copy to Plaintiff.(11) The Court cannot effect service on Officers Doe 1-5 without their full names and current work or service addresses. Plaintiff is directed to obtain this information through discovery and file a notice containing the information. Once the notice has been filed, the Court will order service on Officers Doe 1-5. Signed by Judge Victor A. Bolden on 7/21/2023. (Diallo, I.) (Additional attachment(s) added on 7/24/2023: #1 Replacement PDF-MAIN) (Murphy, Tatihana). Modified Discovery and Summary Judgment Year due date on 7/24/2023 (Murphy, Tatihana).
|
| Set Deadlines/Hearings: Discovery due by 4/5/2024; Dispositive Motions due by 6/7/2024. (Diallo, I.) |
| Filing 11 MOTION for Limited early discovery Order by Joe Baltas. (Imbriani, Susan) |
|
Filing 10
ORDER granting #2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Signed by Judge Thomas O. Farrish on 6/14/23. (Pesta, J.)
|
|
Filing 9
ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER FOR COUNSEL - PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER Signed by Judge Victor A. Bolden on 6/13/2023.(Murphy, Tatihana)
|
|
Filing 8
Prisoner E-Filing Standing Order on Prisoner Electronic Filing Program Signed by Judge Janet C. Hall on 6/13/2023.(Murphy, Tatihana)
|
|
Filing 7
STANDING PROTECTIVE ORDER Signed by Judge Victor A. Bolden on 6/13/2023.(Murphy, Tatihana)
|
| 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 6/13/2023. (Fanelle, N.) |
| Filing 5 MOTION for Prejudgment Disclosure of Property and Assets by Joe Baltas. Responses due by 7/4/2023. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Writ, #2 Proposed Order to Show Cause) (Fanelle, N.) |
| Filing 4 MOTION for Prejudgment Remedy by Joe Baltas. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit, #2 Declaration, #3 Proposed Order)(Fanelle, N.) |
| Filing 3 Prisoner Trust Fund Account Statement by Joe Baltas. (Fanelle, N.) |
| Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Joe Baltas. (Fanelle, N.) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Shannon Bowers, Nicholas Briatico, Dave, John Doe(3, In His Individual Capacity ), John Doe(2, In His Individual Capacity ), John Doe(5, In His Individual Capacity ), John Doe(4, In His Individual Capacity ), John Doe(1, In His Individual Capacity ), Damien Doran, Daniel Dougherty, Francis, Jerikah, Francesco Lupis, Robert Martin, Sara Schauer, filed by Joe Baltas. (Fanelle, N.) |
| Judge Victor A. Bolden and Judge Robert A. Richardson 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.
