Bogach v. National Grid USA
| Elaine Bogach |
| National Grid USA |
| 3:2026cv00549 |
| April 10, 2026 |
| U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| Sarah F Russell |
| Robert M Spector |
| Civil Rights: Jobs |
| 42 U.S.C. § 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment) |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on May 1, 2026. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 19
ORDER denying without prejudice #16 Motion to Appoint Counsel.Because civil litigants do not have a constitutional right to the appointment of counsel, a court's decision to appoint pro bono counsel is discretionary. Leftridge v. Conn. State Trooper Officer No. 1283, 640 F.3d 62, 68-69 (2d Cir. 2011) ("A party has no constitutionally guaranteed right to the assistance of counsel in a civil case.") (citation omitted); Hodge v. Police Officers, 802 F.2d 58, 60 (2d Cir. 1986) ("Broad discretion lies with the district judge in deciding whether to appoint counsel....") (citation omitted); 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(1) (permitting district court to appoint pro bono counsel for indigent litigant). The Second Circuit has cautioned the district courts against the "routine appointment of counsel." Cooper v. A. Sargenti Co., 877 F.2d 170, 173-74 (2d Cir. 1989).Before appointing counsel, the court must "determine whether the indigent's position seems likely to be of substance." Hodge, 802 F.2d at 61; see also Cooper, 877 F.2d at 171. If the claims are sufficiently meritorious, the court should then consider other factors bearing on the need for appointment of counsel, including the movant's ability to investigate the factual issues of the case, whether conflicting evidence implicating the need for cross-examination will be the major proof presented, the movant's apparent ability to present the case, and the complexity of the legal issues involved. See Hodge, 802 F.2d at 61-62.Given the early posture of the case and the limited information in the record, the court cannot assess whether Plaintiff's claims have sufficient merit to justify requiring a private attorney to volunteer their time and effort for this case. Accordingly, the court denies Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel without prejudice. Plaintiff may renew the request for appointment of counsel at later stages of this proceeding.The court reminds Plaintiff that she may also seek to consult with the Federal Pro Se Legal Assistance Program for legal advice about this matter. Details for contacting the Legal Assistance Program are available at https://law.qu.edu/academics/clinics-and-externships/federal-pro-se-legal-assistance-program/. Signed by Judge Sarah F. Russell on 5/1/2026. (Lewis, D)
|
|
Filing 18
ORDER granting #17 Motion by Self-Represented Litigant to Participate in Electronic Filing. Self-Represented Filers are Required to Comply with the Standard Electronic Filing Order Docketed at Case Opening. Signed by Judge Sarah F. Russell on 5/1/2026. (Lewis, D)
|
| Filing 17 MOTION by Self-Represented Litigant to Participate in Electronic Filing by Elaine Bogach. (Chartier, A.) |
| Filing 16 MOTION to Appoint Counsel by Elaine Bogach. (Chartier, A.) |
| Filing 15 ELECTRONIC SUMMONS ISSUED in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 and LR 4 as to *National Grid USA* with answer to complaint due within *21* days. *Elaine Bogach* *16 Vernon Avenue #4* *Vernon, CT 06066*. (Peterson, M) |
| Request for Clerk to issue summons as to National Grid USA. (Peterson, M) |
| Filing 14 NOTICE REGARDING SERVICE: The self-represented plaintiff shall proceed with service upon the defendant(s) pursuant to Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and may refer to pages 8-11 of the Court's Guide for Self-Represented Parties found on our website here: https://www.ctd.uscourts.gov/rules-and-forms. If service is not effected by 7/23/2026, the case will be subject to dismissal. Dismissal due by 7/23/2026. Signed by Clerk on 4/24/2026.(Chartier, A.) |
|
Filing 13
ORDER finding as moot #2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. On April 15, 2026, the Court indicated that the plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP") was deficient and ordered the plaintiff to file a revised motion. Rather than file a revised motion, the plaintiff paid the filing fee on April 23, 2026, rendering the IFP motion moot. Having determined that the plaintiff is not entitled to IFP status, the Court concludes an initial review of the complaint is not warranted. See 28 U.S.C. 1915(a) (requiring court authorization where a plaintiff seeks to bring a case without prepayment of fees). Signed by Judge Robert M. Spector on 04/23/2026. (Lee, Elisabeth)
|
| Filing fee received from Elaine Bogach: $ 405.00, receipt number 23215 Signed by Clerk on 4/23/2026.(Irizarry, Josie) |
|
Filing 12
ORDER taking under advisement #2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP"). The Court has reviewed the plaintiff's IFP motion and finds that additional information is needed. Based on the information provided in the motion, the plaintiff's source of income appears to be her social security disability insurance ("SSDI") and her spouse's social security income ("SSI"). (Doc. No. 2 at 6). Although she provides this income information, she must fill the gaps of information. The Court highlights several deficiencies in the financial affidavit, the standard form created by the District of Connecticut that pro se litigants must complete along with the IFP motion. (Doc. No. 2 at 2-6). First, the plaintiff must complete section A(1). (Id. at 3). Second, the plaintiff must indicate the amount of money that her husband contributes, including his SSI, and state that amount either in section A(4) or A(6). (Id. at 3, 6); Fridman v. City of New York, 195 F. Supp. 2d 534, 537 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) ("In assessing an application to proceed in forma pauperis, a court may consider the resources that the applicant has or can get from those who ordinarily provide the applicant with the necessities of life, such as from a spouse, parent, adult sibling or other next friend.") (quotation marks removed). Third, the plaintiff indicates she is paying off a mortgage or loan related to a property, but she has not completed section B(1) and so it is not clear what is the value of the mortgage or loan. (Id. at 4). For all other sections where the plaintiff did not write any information, she should follow the instructions and either write "O," "none," or "N/A." (See id. at 2). The plaintiff should file a revised IFP motion on or before May 6, 2026. Signed by Judge Robert M. Spector on 04/15/2026. (Lee, Elisabeth)
|
|
Filing 11
ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Robert M. Spector for Motion and Initial Review of the Complaint including #2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis Signed by Judge Sarah F. Russell on 4/14/2026.Motions referred to Robert M. Spector(Lewis, D)
|
| Filing 10 Notice re: Initial Discovery Protocols.Initial Discovery opt out notice due by 4/17/2026. Signed by Clerk on 04/10/2026. (Attachments: #1 Attachment)(Chartier, A.) |
| Filing 9 NOTICE. Pro Se parties may review the District Court's Guide for Self-Represented Litigants, available at https://www.ctd.uscourts.gov/forms/guide-self-represented-litigants, for information regarding Court procedures. Pro Se parties may also seek to consult with the Federal Pro Se Legal Assistance Program for legal advice about this matter. The Federal Pro Se Legal Assistance Program is available for limited scope legal counseling, explaining court orders and civil procedure, reviewing draft filings, and conducting legal research. Non-prisoner pro se parties may apply for assistance by calling 203-582-7030 and leaving a voicemail or sending an email to: [email protected]. More information regarding the Federal Pro Se Legal Assistance Program can be found at https://law.qu.edu/academics/clinics-and-externships/federal-pro-se-legal-assistance-program/(Chartier, A.) |
| Filing 8 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 04/10/2026.(Chartier, A.) |
| Filing 7 Notice of Option to Consent to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction to conduct all proceedings in this civil action (including presiding over a jury or non-jury trial) and to order the entry of final judgment.(Chartier, A.) |
|
Filing 6
Standing Protective Order Signed by Judge Sarah F. Russell on 04/10/2026.(Chartier, A.)
|
|
Filing 5
ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER FOR COUNSEL - PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER Signed by Judge Sarah F. Russell on 04/10/2026.(Chartier, A.)
|
|
Filing 4
Order on Pretrial Deadlines: Amended Pleadings due by 6/9/2026 Discovery due by 10/13/2026 Dispositive Motions due by 11/16/2026 Signed by Clerk on 04/10/2026.(Chartier, A.)
|
| Filing 3 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 4/10/2026.(Gaskins, A) |
| Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Elaine Bogach. (Gaskins, A) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against National Grid USA, filed by Elaine Bogach. (Attachments: #1 attachments)(Gaskins, A) |
| CASE ASSIGNMENT: District Judge Sarah F. Russell 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. (Sichanh, C) |
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
| Search for this case: Bogach v. National Grid USA | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Elaine Bogach | |
| 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 | [ Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: National Grid USA | |
| 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 | [ 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.
