United States District Court, D. Connecticut
ORDER AS TO MOTION FOR PREJUDGMENT REMEDY
CHARLES S. HAIGHT, JR. SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Courtney Green ("Plaintiff), proceeding pro se,
commenced this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on
October 17, 2016. Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at
Osborn Correctional Institution ("Osborn"), in
Connecticut. On May 26, 2017, this Court issued an Initial
Review Order [Doc. 7], permitting Plaintiffs § 1983
claims based on alleged Fourteenth Amendment equal protection
violations occurring as a result of (1) the differential
treatment of Corrigan-Radgowski Correctional Center
("Corrigan") prisoners as opposed to similarly
situated prisoners at Cheshire Correctional Institution and
other Connecticut facilities; and (2) the differential
treatment of Corrigan inmates with less than twenty-five
years remaining on their sentences, as opposed to similarly
situated inmates with twenty-five years or more on their
sentences, to proceed against all Defendants in their
individual capacities. Familiarity with the facts alleged in
Plaintiffs Complaint is presumed.
September 6, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Prejudgment
Remedy and Lien of Property [Doc. 18]. Defendants filed
a timely Objection [Doc. 19] to that Motion. For the reasons
set forth below, Plaintiffs Motion for Prejudgment Remedy and
Lien of Property is DENIED.
prejudgment remedy is intended to secure the satisfaction of
a potential monetary judgment. Cendant Corp. v.
Shelton, No. 3-06-CV-854, 2007 WL 1245310, at *2 (D.
Conn. Apr. 30, 2007); Fed.R.Civ.P. 64. State law is
determinative of when and how a provisional remedy may be
obtained. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 64; Bahrain
Telecomm. Co. v. DiscoveryTel, Inc., 476 F.Supp.2d 176,
183 (D. Conn. 2007); see also Everspeed Enterprises Ltd.
v. Skaarup Shipping Int'/., 754 F.Supp.2d 395, 401
(D. Conn. 2010) ("Rule 64 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure permits a plaintiff to utilize the state
prejudgment remedies available to secure a judgment that
might ultimately be rendered in an action.").
Connecticut law, a prejudgment remedy is appropriate if the
court, 'upon consideration of the facts before it and
taking into account any defenses, counterclaims or setoffs .
. . finds that the plaintiff has shown probable cause that
such a judgment will be rendered in the matter in the
plaintiffs favor in the amount of the prejudgment remedy
sought'". Roberts v. TriPlanet Partners,
LLC, 950 F.Supp.2d 418, 420 (D. Conn. 2013) (quoting
C.G.S. § 52-278d(a)). Thus, " [a] prejudgment
remedy may be obtained when the plaintiff establishes that
there is probable cause to sustain the validity of his
claims." Davila v. Secure Pharmacy Plus, 329
F.Supp.2d 311, 313 (D. Conn. 2004) (citing C.G.S. §
52-278b of the Connecticut General Statutes provides that
"no prejudgment remedy shall be available to a person in
any action at law or equity (1) unless he has complied with
the provisions of sections 52-278a to 52-278g". C.G.S.
§ 52-278b. Section 52-278c sets forth the required
documents that must be filed in connection with an
application for a prejudgment remedy, and the required notice
that must be served upon a defendant. C.G.S. § 52-278c.
With certain exceptions, inapplicable here, an application
for a prejudgment remedy must be accompanied by "[a]n
affidavit sworn to by the plaintiff or any competent affiant
setting forth a statement of facts sufficient to show that
there is probable cause that a judgment in the amount of the
prejudgment remedy sought, or in an amount greater than the
amount of the prejudgment remedy sought". C G. S. §
52-278c(a)(2); see also Davila, 329 F.Supp.2d at
313. Further, section 52-278c "requires that a notice
and claim form containing specific language be attached to
the application for prejudgment remedy."
Davila, 329 F.Supp.2d at 314 (citing C.G.S. §
52-278c(e), (f), and (g)). The purpose of this requirement is
"to apprise respondent parties that they have rights and
options that might otherwise be unknown to them."
Robertson v. Bai, Pollock, Blueweiss, & Mulcahey,
P.C., No. CV085018161S, 2008 WL 4926749, at *1 (Conn.
Super. Ct. Oct. 29, 2008).
moves for a prejudgment remedy in the amount of $20, 000 per
Defendant. Pl. Mot. ¶ 2. To secure this sum, Plaintiff
moves to attach Defendants' properties; garnish their
wages; and seize any jewelry, paychecks, bank accounts,
stocks, bonds, automobiles, and houses. Id. In
support of his application, Plaintiff states, in a rather
conclusory fashion, that there is "probable cause that a
judgment will be rendered in the matter in favor of the
applicant". Id. Defendants oppose Plaintiffs
motion, arguing, inter alia, that it is procedurally
infirm. See Def Obj.
motion for a prejudgment remedy does not comply with the
statutory requirements set forth in section 52-278c of the
Connecticut General Statutes. Plaintiff has failed to submit
a sworn affidavit that sets forth facts sufficient to
establish that there is probable cause that a judgment will
be rendered in his favor in the amount sought, as required by
section 52-278c(a)(2) of the Connecticut General Statutes.
Plaintiff has also neglected to attach to his motion the
notice and claim form required by section 52-278c(e), (f),
and (g). Plaintiffs motion is further deficient in that it
does not include order and summons forms, as directed by
section 52-278c(a) and (b). The failure to submit such an
affidavit and the failure to attach the appropriate forms
requires denial of Plaintiffs motion. See, e.g., Adeyemi
v. Murphy, No. 3:12CV960, 2012 WL 6155213, at *2 (D.
Conn. Dec. 11, 2012) (denying a motion for prejudgment remedy
for failure to comply with the statutory requirements of
C.G.S. § 52-278c); Porter v. Yale Univ. Police
Dep't, No. 3:1 l-CV-526, 2011 WL 3290212, at *4 (D.
Conn. Aug. 1, 2011) (same); Joyce v. Hanney, No.
3:05-CV-1477, 2009 WL 2488022, at *1 (D. Conn. Aug. 12, 2009)
(same); Davila, 329 F.Supp.2d at 313-14 (same). As
Plaintiffs application for a prejudgment remedy does not
comply with the statutory requirements, the motion will be
denied without prejudice.
foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs Motion for Prejudgment Remedy
and Motion for Lien of Property [Doc. 18] is DENIED, without
prejudice to renewal.
 Plaintiffs instant Motion bears a
close similarity to a Motion for Prejudgment Remedy filed in
his unrelated complaint, Green v. Shaw, et al., No.
3:17-cv-00913(CSH), Doc. 13. I here adopt much of the same
analysis I applied in my October 18, 2017 Ruling in that