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.

Brown v. Dep't of Correction

United States District Court, D. Connecticut

October 18, 2017

CHRISTOPHER BROWN, Plaintiff,
v.
DEP'T OF CORRECTION, ET AL., Defendants.

          RULING AND ORDER

          Michael P. Shea, U.S.D.J.

         The plaintiff, Christopher Brown, currently incarcerated at Corrigan-Radgowski Correctional Institution, initiated this civil action pro se by filing a complaint against the State of Connecticut Department of Correction and fourteen of its employees. The plaintiff subsequently filed an amended complaint to add five new employees of the Department of Correction as defendants.

         On December 19, 2016, the court dismissed the Fifth Amendment and Americans with Disabilities Act claims as well as all other claims against the Department of Correction, Warden Maldonado, Captains Johnson, Tuttle, Robles and Marinelli and Counselor Supervisor John/Jane Doe at Cheshire pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) and dismissed the claims for monetary damages against Commissioner Semple, District Administrator Quiros, Wardens Erfe and Cournoyer, Deputy Wardens Mulligan and Lafar, Directors of Offender Classification Lewis and Maiga, Counselors Bachon, O'Neill and Griggs and Drs. Frayne and Gagne in their official capacities pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(2). The court concluded that that the Eighth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment claims would proceed against defendants Semple, Quiros, Erfe, Cournoyer, Mulligan, Lafar, Lewis, Maiga, Bachon, O'Neill, Griggs, Frayne and Gagne in their individual and official capacities.

         The plaintiff moved for reconsideration of the dismissal of the claims against Warden Maldonado and Captains Johnson and Robles. On May 23, 2017, the court granted the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration in part and reinstated the Fourteenth Amendment claim against Warden Maldonado and Captains Johnson and Robles for denial of due process in connection with the plaintiff's continued confinement in administrative segregation without periodic reviews, the Fourteenth Amendment claim against Captain Johnson for denial of due process in connection with the plaintiff's regression back to earlier phases of administrative segregation and the Eighth Amendment claim against Warden Maldonado for deliberate indifference to plaintiff's mental health needs. On June 6, 2017, the court granted the defendants leave to file an answer to the amended complaint on or before July 21, 2017.

         Pending before the court are two motions to compel, a motion for reconsideration, a motion to amend the complaint and a supplemental complaint filed by the plaintiff and a motion for extension of time filed by the defendants. For the reasons set forth below, the plaintiff's motions are denied, the supplemental complaint is stricken from the docket and the defendants' motion is granted.

         I. Motions to Compel [ECF Nos. 38, 43]

         In both motions, the plaintiff states that he served interrogatories and a request for production of documents on the defendants on April 4, or 5, 2017. He claims to have sent “a reminder” request to the defendants on May 3, 2017. He seeks to compel the defendants to respond to the interrogatories and request for production of documents.

         A party may seek the assistance of the court only after he has complied with the provisions of Rule 37(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Under this rule, a motion to compel must include an affidavit certifying that the party has made an attempt to confer with opposing counsel in a good faith effort to resolve the discovery dispute without the intervention of the court.

         Although the plaintiff claims that he sent a written reminder to the defendants on May 3, 2017, he does not attach the letter to his motion. Nor has he attached an affidavit certifying that he has made an attempt to confer with opposing counsel in a good faith effort to resolve the discovery disputes without the intervention of the court. Because the plaintiff did not attach a copy of his May 3, 2017 reminder letter to the defendants, the court cannot conclude that the plaintiff has made a good faith effort to resolve these disputes involving answers to interrogatories and a request for production of documents prior to filing the motion to compel as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(1).

         Furthermore, Rule 37(b)1 of the Local Civil Rules of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut requires that any discovery motion filed with the court be accompanied by copies of the discovery requests at issue and a detailed memorandum of law containing the specific items of discovery sought or opposed. Rule 37(b)1 provides in pertinent part:

Memoranda by both sides shall be filed with the Clerk in accordance with Rule 7(a)1 of these Local Rules before any discovery motion is heard by the Court. Each memorandum shall contain a concise statement of the nature of the case and a specific verbatim listing of each of the items of discovery sought or opposed, and immediately following each specification shall set forth the reason why the item should be allowed or disallowed. . . . Every memorandum shall include, as exhibits, copies of the discovery requests in dispute.

D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 37(b)1.

         The plaintiff has not filed a memorandum in support of either motion that sets forth the reasons why each of the requested items of discovery should be allowed. Nor has he attached copies of the interrogatories or the request for production to either motion. Thus, he did not comply with Local Rule 37(b)1. For all of the reasons set forth above, the motions to compel are denied without prejudice.

         II. Motion for Reconsideration of Appointment of ...


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.