Mccullough v. Town of Rocky Hill
| Stephen C. McCullough |
| Town of Rocky Hill |
| 3:2023cv01367 |
| October 18, 2023 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| Kari A Dooley |
| Maria E Garcia |
| Robert M Spector |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on December 13, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 30 MOTION for Attorney Fees by Town of Rocky Hill.Responses due by 1/3/2024 (Cohen, Adam) |
| JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS SURVEY - FOR COUNSEL ONLY: The following link to the confidential survey requires you to log into CM/ECF for SECURITY purposes. Once in CM/ECF you will be prompted for the case number. Although you are receiving this survey through CM/ECF, it is hosted on an independent website called SurveyMonkey. Once in SurveyMonkey, the survey is located in a secure account. The survey is not docketed and it is not sent directly to the judge. To ensure anonymity, completed surveys are held up to 90 days before they are sent to the judge for review. We hope you will take this opportunity to participate, please click on this link: https://ecf.ctd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/Dispatch.pl?survey (Fanelle, N.) |
Filing 29
ORDER adopting #20 Recommended Ruling. The Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Spector's Recommended Ruling concerning #1 Plaintiff's Complaint. The Recommended Ruling contains an accurate statement of the applicable law and a thoroughly reasoned analysis and application of that law to the circumstances presented here. Plaintiff objected to the Recommended Ruling in ECF No. #23 , but therein did not adequately address the Recommended Ruling's conclusions that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the claims in the Complaint and Plaintiff lacks standing to make a claim for injunctive relief under Section 1983. The Recommended Ruling therefore is Accepted, Adopted and So Ordered, and Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this matter. Signed by Judge Kari A. Dooley on 12/12/2023. (Haider, Syeda)
|
|
Filing 28
ORDER denying #27 Motion for Extension of Time. Local Rule 7(b)(1) requires that motions for extensions of time may not be granted except for good cause. Plaintiff has not demonstrated such good cause in making this third application for an extension of time to file an objection to the Recommended Ruling or alternatively an amended complaint. The Recommended Ruling at ECF No. #20 will be taken up forthwith. Signed by Judge Kari A. Dooley on 12/11/2023. (Haider, Syeda)
|
| Filing 27 MOTION for Extension of Time until 12/14/2023 to file an Amended Objection and Amended Complaint by Stephen C. McCullough. (Fanelle, N.) |
|
Filing 26
ORDER granting #25 . Plaintiff may file an amended objection and amended complaint by December 8, 2023. Signed by Judge Kari A. Dooley on 12/5/2023. (Haider, Syeda)
|
| Filing 25 MOTION to Postpone Judge's Decision by Stephen C. McCullough. Responses due by 12/25/2023 (Oliver, T.) |
| Filing 24 Memorandum in Support re #20 RECOMMENDED RULING filed by Town of Rocky Hill. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit 2)(Cohen, Adam) |
| Filing 23 OBJECTION to #20 Recommended Ruling filed by Stephen C. McCullough. (Fanelle, N.) |
|
Filing 22
ORDER denying as moot #19 Motion for Extension of Time. (See Doc. No. #20 ). Signed by Judge Robert M. Spector on November 9, 2023. (Spears, Andrew)
|
|
Filing 21
ORDER granting #2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. (See Doc. No. #20 ). Signed by Judge Robert M. Spector on November 9, 2023. (Spears, Andrew)
|
|
Filing 20
RECOMMENDED RULING: For the reasons set forth in the attached Recommended Ruling, the plaintiff's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. No. #2 ) is GRANTED. Nevertheless, the Court further recommends that the entire Complaint be DISMISSED with prejudice, insofar as this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the claims set forth therein, and the plaintiff lacks standing to make a claim for injunctive relief under Section 1983. This is a recommended ruling. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(1). Any objections to this recommended ruling must be filed with the Clerk of the Court within fourteen (14) days of being served with this order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Any party receiving notice of an order or recommended ruling from the Clerk by mail shall have five (5) additional days to file any objection. See D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 72.2(a). Failure to timely object will preclude appellate review. See 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 6(a), 6(e); D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 72.2; Small v. Secretary of H.H.S., 892 F.2d 15 (2d Cir. 1989) (per curiam); FDIC v. Hillcrest Assocs., 66 F.3d 566, 569 (2d Cir. 1995). Insofar as the plaintiff intends to file an Amended Complaint in this action, he may set forth his proposed amendments and/or address the Court's lack of subject matter jurisdiction in connection with any objections filed as to this recommended ruling. Objections due by 11/23/2023. Signed by Judge Robert M. Spector on November 9, 2023. (Spears, Andrew)
|
| Filing 19 MOTION to Extend Time on Final Order by Stephen C. McCullough. (Fanelle, N.) |
|
Filing 18
ORDER re #17 Motion for Extension of Time. Plaintiff's time to file his amended complaint is extended to November 8, 2023. This deadline shall not be further extended absent unforeseen and exceptional circumstances. Signed by Judge Kari A. Dooley on 11/2/2023. (Haider, Syeda)
|
| Filing 17 MOTION for Extension of Time until 11/8/2023 to file Amended Complaint by Stephen C. McCullough. (Fanelle, N.) |
|
Filing 16
ORDER re #15 . Plaintiff may file his amended complaint by November 2, 2023. Signed by Judge Kari A. Dooley on 10/27/2023. (Haider, Syeda)
|
| Filing 15 MOTION to Postpone Decision on Subject Matter Jurisdiction by Stephen C. McCullough.Responses due by 11/16/2023 (Imbriani, Susan) |
| Filing 14 Disclosure Statement by Stephen C. McCullough. (Imbriani, Susan) |
|
Filing 12
ORDER denying #1 Request for an Ex Parte Temporary Restraining Order. Plaintiff seeks to enjoin Rocky Hill from recording the tax sale deed or otherwise conveying title to property located on Hayes Road in Rocky Hill, Connecticut. Pursuant to Rule 65(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court cannot grant such ex parte relief unless the party seeking such relief alleges and demonstrates facts to show an "immediate or irreparable injury, loss, or damage" that will result before Defendant can be heard in opposition or to show any efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it should not be required. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1). These provisions must be scrupulously observed. See Austin v. Altman, 332 F.2d 273, 275 (2d Cir. 1964). Although Plaintiff alleges irreparable harm if Rocky Hill is not enjoined as he requests, there is no showing that the harm will result if Rocky Hill is afforded the opportunity to respond. The tax redemption date was set months ago yet Plaintiff waited until the day before the date to file this action. Nor does Plaintiff provide any information as to efforts he made to notify Rocky Hill of his request for injunctive relief or alternatively the reasons why such notice should not be required. Absent information sufficient for the Court to conclude that ex parte injunctive relief is appropriate, the motion for a temporary restraining order must be, and is, denied. See Little Tor Auto Ctr. V. Exxon Co. USA, 822 F. Supp. 141, 143 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) ("Ex parte relief under [Rule] 65 by way of a temporary restraining order is an emergency procedure."). Moreover, it is not clear to the Court that it has subject-matter jurisdiction over this case under either statutory or doctrinal substantive law. Absent a determination of subject matter jurisdiction in the first instance, issuance of injunctive relief is particularly inappropriate. Accordingly, the request for an ex parte temporary restraining order is DENIED. The Complaint shall undergo initial review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915 which will include an inquiry into the Court's subject matter jurisdiction. Signed by Judge Kari A. Dooley on 10/23/2023. (Chambers, Jillian)
|
|
Filing 11
ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Robert M. Spector for for ruling on 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis and review of the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915. Signed by Judge Kari A. Dooley on 10/23/2023. Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Robert M. Spector.(Gould, K.)
|
| Filing 10 NOTICE of Appearance by Adam J. Cohen on behalf of Town of Rocky Hill (Cohen, Adam) |
| Judge Robert M. Spector added. Judge Maria E. Garcia no longer assigned to case. (Freberg, B) |
| Filing 13 ADDENDUM by Stephen C. McCullough to #1 Complaint and Request for Injunction and Request for Immediate Temporary Restraining Order. (Fanelle, N.) |
| Filing 9 OBJECTION re #1 Complaint Request for Injunction and TRO filed by Town of Rocky Hill. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A)(Orleans, Jonathan) |
| Filing 8 NOTICE of Appearance by Jonathan B. Orleans on behalf of Town of Rocky Hill (Orleans, Jonathan) |
|
Filing 7
ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Maria E. Garcia for ruling on #2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis and review of the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915. Signed by Judge Kari A. Dooley on 10/19/2023. Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Maria E. Garcia.(Gould, K.)
|
|
Filing 6
STANDING PROTECTIVE ORDER Signed by Judge Kari A. Dooley on 10/18/2023. (Fanelle, N.)
|
|
Filing 5
ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER FOR COUNSEL - PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER Signed by Judge Kari A. Dooley on 10/18/2023. (Fanelle, N.)
|
|
Filing 4
Order on Pretrial Deadlines: Amended Pleadings due by 12/17/2023 Discovery due by 4/18/2024 Dispositive Motions due by 5/23/2024 Signed by Clerk on 10/18/2023. (Fanelle, N.)
|
| Filing 3 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 10/18/2023. (Peterson, M) |
| Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Stephen C. Mccullough. (Peterson, M) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT and Request for Injunction and Request for Immediate Temporary Restraining Order Ex Parte against Town of Rocky Hill, filed by Stephen C. Mccullough. (Attachments: #1 Exhibits) (Peterson, M) |
| Judge Kari A. Dooley and Judge Maria E. Garcia added. (Shafer, J.) |
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
| Search for this case: Mccullough v. Town of Rocky Hill | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Stephen C. McCullough | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: Town of Rocky Hill | |
| Represented By: | Adam J. Cohen |
| Represented By: | Jonathan B. Orleans |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
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.
