Holness v. Shumway et al
| Maurice Andre Holness |
| Scott Shumway, Ameer Williams, Jaub Baliga and New Haven Police |
| 3:2025cv01821 |
| October 28, 2025 |
| U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| Kari A Dooley |
| Robert M Spector |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| No cause code entered |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 17, 2026. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 23 NOTICE of Rejection and Return of Notice Letter by Maurice Andre Holness re 22 Order on Motion for Reconsideration, Order on Motion to Amend/Correct, (Attachments: #1 Envelope)(Limberti, L) |
Filing 22
ORDER adopting #20 Recommended Ruling; granting in part #21 Motion for Reconsideration. The Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Spector's Recommended Ruling concerning the #1 Complaint. Therein, Judge Spector evaluated the sufficiency of the Complaint and recommended dismissal of all of the claims asserted therein, insofar as the Complaint does not include sufficient factual detail to identify what actions each individual officer took that allegedly violated the plaintiff's constitutional rights. See ECF No. 20. Judge Spector further recommended that Plaintiff be permitted leave to file an amended complaint that states a viable claim. See id. On February 24, 2026, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration of Judge Spector's Recommended Ruling, which the Court has construed and accepted as an objection to the Recommended Ruling, albeit an untimely one. See ECF No. 21. In the same submission, Plaintiff also seeks leave to amend his complaint, averring that he can provide additional factual detail to support his claims. See id. Notwithstanding Plaintiff's objections, the Court finds that 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. Moreover, the Court observes that the Recommended Ruling expressly permitted Plaintiff to file an amended complaint curing the Complaint's deficiencies, to include its failure to name the proper municipal entity in connection with any purported Monell claim. In other words, as a practical matter, the Recommended Ruling has already afforded Plaintiff with the relief he seeks through his #21 Motion for Reconsideration, namely, an opportunity to amend his pleading. For these reasons, the Recommended Ruling is Accepted, Adopted and So Ordered. The Complaint is dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff may file any Amended Complaint on or before April 6, 2026. Therein, he may elect to assert a Monell claim against the City of New Haven as opposed to the New Haven Police Department, and may otherwise clarify the claims against the individual defendants, providing sufficient factual bases as to their personal involvement in the alleged constitutional deprivations. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Kari A. Dooley on March 5, 2026. (Spears, A.)
|
| Filing 21 MOTION for Reconsideration re #20 RECOMMENDED RULING, and MOTION to Amend #1 Complaint by Maurice Andre Holness. (Freberg, B) |
|
Filing 20
RECOMMENDED RULING: For the reasons stated in the attached Recommended Ruling, the plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. The Court further recommends that the plaintiff's claims be DISMISSED because the plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B). The Court recommends that the plaintiff's claims be dismissed with leave to amend to state a viable claim. If the plaintiff elects to file an amended complaint, that pleading must comply with the Federal and Local Rules of Civil Procedure. It must be captioned "Amended Complaint," and will completely supersede (that is, replace) the current complaint. No memorandum of law should be attached to the amended complaint. Before filing an amended complaint, the plaintiff must carefully review this Recommended Ruling and ensure that any amended complaint addresses the deficiencies identified herein. The Court will review the amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B). If the amended complaint fails to state a claim for which relief may be granted as to any claim already reviewed by the Court, such claims may be dismissed with prejudice upon review under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B). 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 after filing of such order. See D. CONN. L. CIV. R. 72.2(a). Any party receiving notice or 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 file a timely objection will preclude appellate review. See 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV. P. 6(a) & 72; D. CONN. L. CIV. R. 72.2; Impala v. U.S. Dept. of Just., 670 F. Appx 32 (2d Cir. 2016) (summary order) (failure to file timely objection to Magistrate Judge's recommended ruling will preclude further appeal to Second Circuit); Small v. Secy of H.H.S., 892 F.2d 15 (2d Cir. 1989) (per curiam). Signed by Judge Robert M. Spector on 01/30/2026. (Bharadwaja, Shina)
|
|
Filing 19
ORDER granting #17 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Signed by Judge Robert M. Spector on 01/30/2026. (Bharadwaja, Shina)
|
|
Filing 18
ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Robert M. Spector for a ruling on #17 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 12/17/2025.(Gould, K)
|
| Filing 17 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Maurice Andre Holness. (Ruocco, M.) |
| Filing 16 NOTICE: ANY MOTIONS PENDING AT THE TIME OF TRANSFER MUST BE REFILED IN OUR DISTRICT. Signed by Clerk on 10/28/2025.(Fanelle, N.) |
| Filing 15 Notice to Counsel and Litigants Regarding AI-Assisted Research: Attorneys and pro se litigants alike should exercise great caution in submitting any AI-generated language in filings before the Court. Use of AI without verification of the accuracy of the information it generates like any other shoddy research method from other sources or tools implicates Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, the central purpose of which is to deter baseless filings in district court and thus to streamline the administration and procedure of the federal courts. Rule 11 applies fully to actions filed by pro se litigants.Therefore, all parties are on notice that the Court has a no-tolerance policy for any briefing (AI-assisted or not) that hallucinates legal propositions or otherwise severely misstates the law. Such filings will often result in sanctions absent reasonable excuse. See generally Willis v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n et al, No. 3:25-CV-516-BN, 2025 WL 1408897 (N.D. Tex. May 15, 2025). Signed by Clerk on 10/28/2025.(Fanelle, N.) |
| Filing 14 Notice of Option to Consent to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction.(Fanelle, N.) |
|
Filing 13
Standing Protective Order Signed by Judge Kari A. Dooley on 10/28/2025.(Fanelle, N.)
|
|
Filing 12
ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER FOR COUNSEL - PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER Signed by Judge Kari A. Dooley on 10/28/2025. (Fanelle, N.)
|
|
Filing 11
Order on Pretrial Deadlines: Amended Pleadings due by 12/29/2025 Discovery due by 4/29/2026 Dispositive Motions due by 6/3/2026 Signed by Clerk on 10/28/2025. (Fanelle, N.)
|
| Filing 10 Notice: Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1(b), a disclosure statement required under Rule 7.1(a) 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 10/28/2025. (Oliver, T.) |
| Filing 9 Case electronically transferred in from District of Florida Middle; Case Number 3:25-cv-00902. Modified on 10/29/2025 TO CORRECT THE DATE FILED (Oliver, T.). |
| CASE ASSIGNMENT: District Judge Kari A. Dooley assigned to the case. If the District Judge issues an Order of Referral to a Magistrate Judge for any matter other than settlement, the matter will be referred to Magistrate Judge Robert M. Spector. (Oliver, T.) |
|
Filing 8
ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. #7 ) is ADOPTED and CONFIRMED and made a part of this Order. Plaintiff's Motion to Transfer (Doc. #6 ) is GRANTED. The Clerk is DIRECTED to TRANSFER this case to the United States District Court for Connecticut for all further proceedings and close this file. Signed by Judge Wendy W. Berger on 10/28/2025. (CKS)
|
| Filing 7 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION recommending (1) granting #6 the motion to transfer and (2) directing the clerk to transfer the action to the District of Connecticut and close the file. Signed by Magistrate Judge Patricia D. Barksdale on 9/18/2025. (KG) |
| Filing 6 MOTION to Change Venue / Transfer Case and Response to DE #3 ORDER by Maurice Andre Holness. (MLB) |
| Filing 5 NOTICE of Local Rule 3.02(a)(2), which requires the parties in every civil proceeding, except those described in subsection (d), to file a case management report (CMR) using the uniform form at www.flmd.uscourts.gov. The CMR must be filed (1) within forty days after any defendant appears in an action originating in this court, (2) within forty days after the docketing of an action removed or transferred to this court, or (3) within seventy days after service on the United States attorney in an action against the United States, its agencies or employees. Judges may have a special CMR form for certain types of cases. These forms can be found at www.flmd.uscourts.gov under the Forms tab for each judge. (Signed by Deputy Clerk). (CKS) |
|
Filing 4
NOTICE TO COUNSEL AND PARTIES: The Middle District of Florida's revised Local Rules become effective April 1, 2024, and can be found on the Court's public website https://www.flmd.uscourts.gov/local-rules. Additionally, the undersigned has issued Standing Orders, available at https://www.flmd.uscourts.gov/judges/wendy-berger, that apply to all proceedings before the undersigned. For a just and efficient resolution of this case, the parties are DIRECTED to read and comply with the Middle District of Florida's Local Rules and this Court's Standing Orders. See Local Rule 1.01(a). Failure to comply with ANY Local Rules or Court Orders may result in the imposition of sanctions including, but not limited to, the dismissal of this action or entry of default without further notice. Signed by Judge Wendy W. Berger on 8/15/2025. (CKS)
|
|
Filing 3
ORDER. By September 2, 2025, the plaintiff must show cause why the court should not transfer or dismiss the case without prejudice for improper venue. A failure to timely show cause may result in transfer or dismissal without prejudice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Patricia D. Barksdale on August 11, 2025. (KG)
|
| Filing 2 MOTION to Proceed In Forma Pauperis by Maurice Andre Holness. (Attachments: #1 Mailing Envelope)(ELA) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Patricia D. Barksdale. |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants filed by Maurice Andre Holness. (3 service copies provided) (Attachments: #1 Mailing Envelope)(ELA) |
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 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.
