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

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)
 

17-1370 - Steele v. Ayotte et al


Download Files

Metadata

Document in Context
17-1370 - Steele v. Ayotte et al
February 6, 2018
PDF | More
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER (see attached). Upon the Court's review of Plaintiff's Complaint pursuant to 28 US.C. § 1915A, the case may proceed only with respect to Plaintiff's federal claim against defendants Ayotte and Olsen, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, for deliberate indifference to his safety in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Because he cannot prove actual injury or damages due to this alleged constitutional violation, if Plaintiff prevails, he will only be entitled to nominal damages (an amount not to exceed one dollar). All other claims are DISMISSED for the reasons set forth in the Order. Signed by Judge Charles S. Haight, Jr. on February 6, 2018. (Dorais, L.)
June 14, 2018
PDF | More
RULING (see attached) granting 9 Plaintiff's Motion to Amend and denying 14 Plaintiff's Motion For Appointment of Counsel. Pursuant to Rule 15(a)(1), Fed. R. Civ. P., Plaintiff may amend his complaint once as a matter of course by filing his amended complaint on or before July 16, 2018. Because Plaintiff has made no request to reinstate defective claims, but rather seeks to supplement the facts alleged, the Court finds no need to perform another §1915A screening unless or until it becomes necessary (i.e., if Plaintiff adds any new claim to his amended complaint). The Court DENIES, without prejudice, Steele's motion for appointment of counsel [Doc. 14]. Absent the requisite threshold showing that a claim has merit, as well as additional facts to warrant the need for counsel, the Court will not appoint counsel at this time. Signed by Judge Charles S. Haight, Jr. on June 14, 2018. (Dorais, L.)