Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Paul v. Ramos

United States District Court, D. Connecticut

October 17, 2016

CHRISTOPHER PAUL, Plaintiff,
v.
EDALIZ RAMOS, Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

          WARREN W. EGINTON SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         This case concerns alleged violation of the plaintiff Christopher Paul's Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights based upon an asserted malicious prosecution by defendant Edaliz Ramos. Plaintiff also claims that defendant intentionally caused him to suffer emotional distress. Defendant has filed a motion for summary judgment. For the following reasons, the motion for summary judgment will be granted.

         Background

         In support of the motion for summary judgment, the parties have submitted statements of undisputed facts in compliance with Local Rule 56(a)1, exhibits and affidavits. These materials reflect that the following facts are undisputed.

         On November 29, 2009, plaintiff was arrested for kidnaping of a minor relative in Massachusetts. The Westborough District Court placed plaintiff on probation for a period of one year ending in November 2013. As a condition of probation, plaintiff was required to provide his probation officer with verification that he did not possess any firearms, if necessary.

         Plaintiff applied for transfer of his probation supervision to Connecticut where he resided. The transfer was accepted.

         On November 26, 2012, plaintiff reported to defendant Probation Officer Edaliz Ramos for intake. Plaintiff refused to complete a substance abuse survey. After plaintiff was informed that he would be referred for a Mental Health Evaluation, he indicated that he would only go to a mental health provider who would “not make him look bad.”

         On November 28, 2012, Probation Supervisor Green determined that plaintiff should be supervised as a Mental Health Client. Probation Officer Ramos informed plaintiff that he needed to obtain a mental health evaluation within two weeks and provide verification that he was no longer in possession of a firearm.

         On December 4, 2012, plaintiff reported to Ramos for an office visit. Ramos informed plaintiff that if he failed to abide by the conditions of probation, his case would be sent back to Massachusetts. Ramos asked plaintiff about a firearm registered to him. He responded that it was a “dead issue.” Ramos then told plaintiff that he needed to get verification from the state police that he was no longer in possession of the firearm registered to him.

         Plaintiff also reported that he had had five mental health evaluations, although he refused to provide any such evaluation to Ramos and he refused to provide Ramos with a release so that she could obtain a copy from his provider.

         On December 5, 2012, Ramos sent an offender violation report to Massachusetts regarding plaintiff's possible possession of a firearm and his refusal to attend a mental health evaluation or provide a medical release to Ramos.

         On December 7, 2012, the Westborough District Court amended plaintiff conditions of probation to provide that plaintiff submit to a mental health evaluation and verify by December 12, 2012, the status of any firearm he may own or have owned.

         On December 11, 2012, plaintiff had an office visit with Ramos, at which time he refused to call a doctor for a mental health evaluation and refused to sign a release. He was informed that he needed to comply with the conditions of probation regarding his firearm verification by December 12, 2012.

         On December 12, 2012, the West Hartford police reported that they had confiscated 16 firearms from plaintiff in 2009. However, the firearm that appeared as registered to plaintiff was ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.