Cerilli v. Quiros et al
Plaintiff: Raymond J. Cerilli
Defendant: Richard Williams, James Smith, Jane Doe, Freston and H. Fedus
Case Number: 3:2024cv01163
Filed: July 8, 2024
Court: U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut
Presiding Judge: Vernon D Oliver
Referring Judge: Robert M Spector
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Prison Conditions
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on January 8, 2025. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
September 4, 2024 Opinion or Order Filing 47 AFFIDAVIT Signed By Raymond J. Cerilli filed by Raymond J. Cerilli. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A-1-5, #2 Attachments, #3 Exhibits A-9, 10, 2)(Gaskins, A)
September 4, 2024 Opinion or Order Filing 46 NOTICE: In support of the re: Appointment of Counsel: for the information in the affidavit by Raymond J. Cerilli (Attachments: #1 attachments)(Gaskins, A)
September 3, 2024 Opinion or Order Filing 44 MOTION to Compel by Raymond J. Cerilli.Responses due by 9/24/2024 (Attachments: #1 attachments A and A1)(Gaskins, A)
September 3, 2024 Opinion or Order Filing 43 MOTION for Order by Raymond J. Cerilli. (Attachments: #1 attachments)(Gaskins, A)
September 3, 2024 Opinion or Order Filing 42 NOTICE: Emergency Notice by Raymond J. Cerilli (Attachments: #1 attachments)(Gaskins, A)
August 30, 2024 Opinion or Order Filing 45 SUMMONS Returned Executed as to Dr. James Smyth, Dr. Cary Freston and Dr. Henry Fedus. (Gaskins, A)
August 30, 2024 Opinion or Order Filing 41 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed as to James Smith waiver sent on 8/15/2024, answer due 10/15/2024. (Gaskins, A)
August 30, 2024 Opinion or Order Filing 40 AFFIDAVIT Signed By Raymond Cerilli filed by Raymond J. Cerilli. (Gaskins, A)
August 30, 2024 Opinion or Order Filing 39 MOTION for Extension of Time by Raymond J. Cerilli. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit)(Gaskins, A)
August 30, 2024 Opinion or Order Filing 38 MOTION preserve evidence by Raymond J. Cerilli.Responses due by 9/20/2024 (Attachments: #1 Exhibit)(Gaskins, A)
August 30, 2024 Opinion or Order Filing 37 MOTION by Raymond J. Cerilli.Responses due by 9/20/2024 (Attachments: #1 Exhibit)(Gaskins, A)
August 30, 2024 Opinion or Order Filing 36 MOTION for Protective Order by Raymond J. Cerilli.Responses due by 9/20/2024 (Attachments: #1 Exhibit)(Gaskins, A)
August 30, 2024 Opinion or Order Filing 35 NOTICE of Change of Address by Raymond J. Cerilli (Corriette, M.)
August 28, 2024 Opinion or Order Filing 34 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed as to Freston waiver sent on 8/15/2024, answer due 10/15/2024. (Gaskins, A)
August 26, 2024 Opinion or Order Filing 33 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed as to H. Fedus waiver sent on 8/15/2024, answer due 10/15/2024. (Peterson, M)
August 15, 2024 Opinion or Order Filing 32 ELECTRONIC SUMMONS ISSUED in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 and LR 4 as to *H. Fedus, Freston, James Smith* with answer to complaint due within *21* days. *Raymond J. Cerilli #162375* *MACDOUGALL-WALKER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION* *1153 East Street South* *Suffield, CT 06080*. (Gaskins, A)
August 15, 2024 Opinion or Order Filing 31 REQUEST FOR WAIVER of Service Packets sent to Dr. Henry Fedus, Dr. James Smyth, Dr. Richard Williams, Dr. Cary Freston on 8/15/2024. Waiver of Service due by 9/19/2024 (Gaskins, A)
August 15, 2024 Opinion or Order USM 285 form together with Summons, Complaint, Order granting IFP reviewed and sent to USM for service on defendants Dr. Cary Freston, Dr. James Smyth and Dr. Henry Fedus.Marshals Return of Service on Summons due by 9/4/2024 (Gaskins, A)
August 13, 2024 Opinion or Order Filing 30 Standing Order re: Initial Discovery Disclosures Signed by Chief Judge on 11/20/2018.(Gaskins, A) Modified to change signature date on 8/15/2024 (Gaskins, A).
August 13, 2024 Opinion or Order Filing 29 ORDER denying #3 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel is denied. A plaintiff generally has no entitlement to court-appointed counsel in a civil case, and the Second Circuit has repeatedly cautioned against the routine appointment of counsel. See, e.g., Hendricks v. Coughlin, 114 F.3d 390, 393 (2d Cir. 1997); Cooper v. A. Sargenti Co., 877 F.2d 170, 172 (2d Cir. 1989). See also D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 83.10(c)1 (Pro bono counsel may be appointed at the discretion of the presiding judge upon motion or on the initiative of the presiding judge when the judge determines that the appointment will serve the interests of justice based upon factors such as (a) a party's apparent ability or inability to afford legal counsel, (b) the likelihood that counsel may be secured under alternative fee arrangements, and (c) the apparent merit of the party's claims or defenses."). The Second Circuit has held that, insofar as volunteer lawyer time is not always readily available, a plaintiff seeking appointment of counsel must make a threshold showing that he "sought counsel and has been unable to obtain it." McDonald v. Head Criminal Court Supervisor Officer, 850 F.2d 121, 123 (2d Cir. 1988). If successful in establishing his inability to secure counsel, a plaintiff must then demonstrate that his complaint "pass[es] the test of likely merit." Cooper, 877 F.2d at 173. Specifically, he must establish that the claims in the complaint have a sufficient basis to justify appointing pro bono counsel to pursue them. Notably, "[e]ven where a claim is not frivolous, counsel is often unwarranted where the [plaintiff's] chances of success are extremely slim." Id. at 171 (citation omitted).Plaintiff describes many attempts to obtain representation or legal assistance. Thus, the Court considers the first requirement to be satisfied. However, at this early stage of the proceedings, where Defendants have not yet responded to Plaintiffs claims, the record is not sufficiently developed to enable the Court to assess the "likely merit" of Plaintiff's claims. The Court is mindful of the difficulties faced by incarcerated persons who are litigating an action without counsel. However, given the circumstances of this case and the standards and criteria articulated by the Second Circuit, the Court denies Plaintiff's motion for appointment of a pro bono attorney at this time. Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to refiling at a later stage of litigation. In any refiled motion, Plaintiff must demonstrate that his claims have merit.Signed by Judge Vernon D. Oliver on 8/13/2024. (Dao, J)
August 13, 2024 Opinion or Order Filing 28 ORDER denying #21 , #23 Motions for Expert Witnesses. Plaintiff has filed two motions asking the court to engage an expert witness to help him with his case. Plaintiff's motions, ECF Nos. #21 and #23 , are denied. Plaintiff has been granted in forma pauperis status in this action. That status, however, only permits him to proceed without prepaying the filing fee and responsibility for effecting service on Defendants. In forma pauperis status "does not authorize payment or advancement of discovery expenses by the court." Goode v. Faneuff, No. 3:04-CV-1524(WWE)(HBF), 2006 WL 2401593, at *1 (D. Conn. Aug. 18, 2006). Thus, the Court lacks authority to engage an expert witness to assist Plaintiff in presenting his case. See El-Massri v. New Haven Corr. Ctr., No. 3:18-cv-1249(JCH), 2019 WL 3491639, at *3 (D. Conn. July 31, 2019) (denying motion to appoint and finance expert witness for plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis) (citing Candelaria v. Coughlin, 133 F.3d 906 (2d Cir. 1997) (affirming district court's denial of plaintiff's request to present government-financed expert medical testimony because "this Court has established that 'federal courts are not authorized to waive or pay witness fees on behalf of an in forma pauperis litigant'")). Signed by Judge Vernon D. Oliver on 8/13/2024. (Dao, J)
August 13, 2024 Opinion or Order Filing 27 INITIAL REVIEW ORDER. For the reasons in the attached initial review order, Plaintiffs claims against Defendants Quiros, Cruz, Gallagher, and West and the claims for injunctive relief against all defendants in their individual capacities are DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915A(b)(1). The case will proceed against Defendants Williams, the nurses Doe, Smith, Freston, and Fedus in their individual capacities on Plaintiffs claims for damages and against Defendants Freston, Smith, and Fedus in their official capacities on his requests for injunctive relief.In conjunction with their response to the Complaint, Defendants are directed to address Plaintiff's Motions for Protective Order, [ECF Nos. #20 , #25 , #26 ].Plaintiff's Motion to Amend his Complaint [ECF No. #13 ] to include a part of his request for relief that he states was inadvertently left in the copier and not submitted with the Complaint is GRANTED.Plaintiff's Motion to Amend his Complaint [ECF No. #22 ] to provide the names of the Jane Doe nurses is DENIED without prejudice in light of the directions included in this Order regarding those defendants. The Court enters the following additional orders.(1)The Clerk shall contact the Department of Correction Office of Legal Affairs to ascertain a current service address for Defendants Williams, Smith, Freston, and Fedus, mail a waiver of service of process request packet containing the Complaint, ECF No. #13 , and this Order to each defendant at the address provided within twenty-one (21) days of this Order, and report to the court on the status of the waiver request on the thirty-fifth day after mailing. If any defendant fails to return the waiver request, the Clerk shall arrange for in-person service by the U.S. Marshals Service on the defendant in his individual capacity and the defendant shall be required to pay the cost of such service.(2)The Clerk shall arrange for service of summons and a copy of the Complaint, ECF No. #13 , and this Order on Defendants Freston, Smith, and Fedus in their official capacities at the Office of the Attorney General, 165 Capitol Avenue, Hartford, CT 06106 within twenty-one (21) days from the date of this order.(3)The Clerk shall send Plaintiff a copy of this Order.(4)The Clerk shall send a courtesy copy of the Complaint, ECF No. #13 , and this Order to the Connecticut Attorney General and the Department of Correction Office of Legal Affairs.(5) Defendants shall file their response to the complaint, either an answer or motion to dismiss, within sixty (60) days from the date the waiver forms are sent. 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.(6)Discovery, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 through 37, shall be completed within seven months (210 days) from the date of this order. Discovery requests need not be filed with the court.(7) All motions for summary judgment shall be filed within eight months (240 days) from the date of this order.(8)Pursuant to 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.(9)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. (10)Plaintiff shall utilize the Prisoner Efiling 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.(11)The Clerk 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.(12)The Court cannot effect service on Defendants Nurses Doe without their full names and current work addresses. Plaintiff is directed to obtain this information during discovery and file a notice identifying the Doe nurses. Once Plaintiff files the notice, the Court will order service on Defendants Doe.Signed by Judge Vernon D. Oliver on 8/13/2024. (Dao, J)
August 6, 2024 Opinion or Order Filing 26 Second MOTION for Protective Order by Raymond J. Cerilli.Responses due by 8/27/2024 (Attachments: #1 attachments)(Gaskins, A)
August 6, 2024 Opinion or Order Filing 25 MOTION for Protective Order by Raymond J. Cerilli.Responses due by 8/27/2024 (Gaskins, A)
August 6, 2024 Opinion or Order Filing 24 Consent to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction by Raymond J. Cerilli (Gaskins, A)
July 29, 2024 Opinion or Order Filing 23 MOTION to file re #21 MOTION for Expert Witnesses by Raymond J. Cerilli.Responses due by 8/19/2024 (Gaskins, A)
July 29, 2024 Opinion or Order Filing 22 MOTION to Amend #1 Complaint by Raymond J. Cerilli.Responses due by 8/19/2024 (Gaskins, A)
July 29, 2024 Opinion or Order Filing 21 MOTION for Expert Witnesses by Raymond J. Cerilli.Responses due by 8/19/2024 (Attachments: #1 attachments)(Gaskins, A)
July 24, 2024 Opinion or Order Filing 19 ORDER finding as moot #17 Motion to Amend/Correct Prisoner Trust Fund Account Statement. Signed by Judge Vernon D. Oliver on 7/24/2024. (Dao, J)
July 23, 2024 Opinion or Order Filing 15 ORDER granting #2 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 7/23/2024. (Corriette, M.)
July 22, 2024 Opinion or Order Filing 20 MOTION for Protective Order by Raymond J. Cerilli.Responses due by 8/12/2024 (Attachments: #1 attachments)(Gaskins, A)
July 22, 2024 Opinion or Order Filing 18 Prisoner Trust Fund Account Statement by Raymond J. Cerilli. (Gaskins, A)
July 22, 2024 Opinion or Order Filing 17 MOTION to Amend #14 Prisoner Trust Fund Account Statement by Raymond J. Cerilli.Responses due by 8/12/2024 (Gaskins, A)
July 22, 2024 Opinion or Order Filing 16 NOTICE by Raymond J. Cerilli re 9 Order re: Insufficiency,,, (Gaskins, A)
July 19, 2024 Opinion or Order Filing 14 Prisoner Trust Fund Account Statement by Raymond J. Cerilli. (Attachments: #1 envelope)(Gaskins, A) Modified to change file date on 7/22/2024 (Gaskins, A).
July 15, 2024 Opinion or Order Filing 13 MOTION to Amend/Correct #1 Complaint by Raymond J. Cerilli.Responses due by 8/5/2024 (Gaskins, A)
July 15, 2024 Opinion or Order Filing 12 Consent to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction by Raymond J. Cerilli (Gaskins, A)
July 15, 2024 Opinion or Order Filing 11 NOTICE by Raymond J. Cerilli (Gaskins, A)
July 11, 2024 Opinion or Order Filing 9 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 plaintiffs statement only covers up to December 22, 2023. The complaint was filed on July 8, 2024. The plaintiff is therefore directed to file with the Clerk of the Court a certified copy of his inmate trust account statement covering at least the period from January 8, 2024, to July 8, 2024. If he does not do so by August 1, 2024, his case may be dismissed. Signed by Judge Thomas O. Farrish on 7/11/24.(Pesta, J.)
July 10, 2024 Opinion or Order Filing 10 EXHIBIT to Complaint by Raymond J. Cerilli re #1 Complaint. (Attachments: #1 Envelope)(Gaskins, A)
July 8, 2024 Opinion or Order Filing 8 Notice of Option to Consent to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction.(Gaskins, A)
July 8, 2024 Opinion or Order Filing 7 ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER FOR COUNSEL - PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER Signed by Judge Vernon D. Oliver on 7/8/2024.(Gaskins, A)
July 8, 2024 Opinion or Order Filing 6 Prisoner E-Filing Standing Order on Prisoner Electronic Filing Program Signed by Chief Judge on 6/22/2016.(Gaskins, A)
July 8, 2024 Opinion or Order Filing 5 Standing Protective Order Signed by Judge Vernon D. Oliver on 7/8/2024.(Gaskins, A)
July 8, 2024 Opinion or Order Filing 4 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 7/8/24.(Pesta, J.)
July 8, 2024 Opinion or Order Filing 3 MOTION to Appoint Counsel by Raymond J. Cerilli. (Pesta, J.)
July 8, 2024 Opinion or Order Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Raymond J. Cerilli. (Pesta, J.)
July 8, 2024 Opinion or Order Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Dab Cruz, Jane Doe, Jane Doe, H. Fedus, Freston, Colleen Gallagher, Angel Quiros, James Smith, Taksha West, Richard Williams, filed by Raymond J. Cerilli.(Pesta, J.)
July 8, 2024 Opinion or Order Judge Vernon D. Oliver and Judge Robert M. Spector added. (Oliver, T.)

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. 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 this case: Cerilli v. Quiros et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Richard Williams
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: James Smith
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: Jane Doe
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: Freston
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: H. Fedus
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 ]
Plaintiff: Raymond J. Cerilli
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.


Why Is My Information Online?