Skip to content.
About GPO   |   Newsroom/Media   |   Congressional Relations   |   Inspector General   |   Careers   |   Contact   |   askGPO   |   Help  
 

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)
 

16-1941 - Sands v. Mudano et al


Download Files

Metadata

Document in Context
16-1941 - Sands v. Mudano et al
January 19, 2017
PDF | More
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER: For the reasons stated in the attached ruling, the Court enters the following orders: (1) Plaintiff's claims against defendants Mudano and Iozzia are DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ยง 1915A(b)(1) without prejudice to filing an amended complaint. The case will proceed on the excessive force claims against defendants Seely, Secondi, Muckle, Miller, Duggan, Messier, and Stadalnik, and the deliberate indifference claim against defendants Evans and Meeker. (2) The Clerk shall verify the current work addresses of defendants Seely, Secondi, Muckle, Miller, Duggan, Messier, Stadalnik, Evans, and Meeker with the Department of Correction Office of Legal Affairs, mail a waiver of service of process request packet to each defendant at the confirmed address within twenty-one (21) days of this Order, and report to the court on the status of the waiver request on the thirty-fifth (35) day after mailing. If any defendant fails to return the waiver request, the Clerk shall make arrangements for in-person service by the U.S. Marshals Service on the defendant in his or her individual capacity and the defendant shall be required to pay the costs of such service in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(d). (3) The Clerk shall send written notice to plaintiff of the status of this action, along with a copy of this Order. (4) The Clerk shall send a courtesy copy of the Complaint and this Ruling and 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 form is 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 any and 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 the plaintiff 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 of the case numbers in the notification of change of address. Plaintiff should also notify the defendant or the attorney for the defendant of his new address. (10) Plaintiff shall utilize the Prisoner Efiling Program when filing documents with the court. Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 1/19/2017. (Townsend, D.)
September 14, 2017
PDF | More
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER: For the reasons stated in the attached ruling, the Court enters the following orders:(1) Plaintiff's motion to amend (Doc. #21) is GRANTED. The Clerk is requested to separately docket the amended complaint.(2) The claims against defendant Mudano remain DISMISSED. The case continues on the excessive force claims against defendants Seely, Secondi, Muckle, Miller, Duggan, Messier and Stadalnik, and the deliberate indifference claim against defendant Evans. The case also will proceed on a deliberate indifference to safety claim against defendant Iozzia. The claim against defendant Garnett is DISMISSED.(3) The Clerk shall verify the current work address of defendant Iozzia with the Department of Correction Office of Legal Affairs, mail a waiver of service of process request packet to him at the confirmed address within twenty-one (21) days of this Order, and report to the Court on the status of the waiver request on the thirty-fifth (35) day after mailing. If defendant Iozzia fails to return the waiver request, the Clerk shall make arrangements 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 costs of such service in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(d).(4) Defendants shall file their response to the amended complaint, either an answer or motion to dismiss, within sixty (60) days from the date the waiver form is 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 any and all additional defenses permitted by the Federal Rules.(5) Discovery, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 through 37, shall be completed within four months (120 days) from the date of this order. Discovery requests need not be filed with the court.(6) All motions for summary judgment shall be filed within five months (150 days) from the date of this order.(7) 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.(8) Defendants motion for extension of time (Doc. #23) is GRANTED in accordance with the terms of this order. Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 9/14/2017. (Lombard, N.)
June 26, 2018
PDF | More
ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Because plaintiff has failed to keep the Court informed of an address at which he may be served with process pursuant to D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 83.1(c)2 and this Court's order, see Doc. #7, this matter is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk is directed to close this case. Plaintiff may move to reopen the case provided he can demonstrate good cause for failing to comply with court rules regarding his address and provide a service address within this district. It is so ordered.Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 6/26/2018.(Lombard, N.)