United States District Court, D. Connecticut
RULING AND ORDER
R. UNDERHILL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Anthony Torrez (“Torrez”), currently confined at
MacDougall-Walker Correctional Institution in Suffield,
Connecticut, has filed several actions in this court. He now
moves to consolidate this case with Torrez v. Department
of Correction, No. 3:17-cv-1223 (SRU) (“Case No.
17cv1223”). He also has filed a nunc pro tunc
motion seeking leave to amend and reconsideration of the
Initial Review Order. The defendants oppose both motions.
Motion to Consolidate
moves to consolidate this case with Case No. 17cv1223. He
argues that both cases are prisoner cases, the claims are not
unique and do not present issues of first impression, and
both include claims for supervisory liability. Torrez argues
that consolidation will streamline the litigation and promote
judicial economy. The defendants oppose the motion, arguing
that there are no common questions of law or fact in the two
district court may consolidate actions if they involve a
common question of law or fact. Fed.R.Civ.P. 42(a)(2). Thus,
the court must examine the claims presented in both cases to
determine if consolidation is warranted.
case concerns Torrez' confinement at Bridgeport
Correctional Center (“BCC”) as a pretrial
detainee. Other than Commissioner Semple, all defendants are
employed at BCC. In the September 1, 2017 Initial Review
Order, I determined that the case will proceed on Fourteenth
Amendment claims for use of excessive force, deliberate
indifference to safety, deliberate indifference to mental
health needs, unconstitutional conditions of confinement and
supervisory liability. The conditions claim as it relates to
Torrez' confinement at Northern Correctional Institution
(“Northern”) is that defendants Semple, Black,
Jones, and Syed were aware of the conditions at Northern but
transferred Torrez there anyway. Because no defendant worked
at Northern, the actual conditions Torrez experienced and the
mental health treatment provided to him are not at issue in
No. 17cv1223 includes allegations regarding Torrez'
confinement at Northern and MacDougall-Walker Correctional
Institution (“MacDougall”). All defendants except
Commissioner Semple and Acting Deputy Commissioner Rinaldi
are employed at Northern or MacDougall. Torrez alleges that
he was transferred to Northern in February 2016, from
Northern to Cheshire Correctional Institution
(“Cheshire”) in September 2016, and from Cheshire
to MacDougall in January 2017. Department of Correction
records indicate that Torrez was sentenced on May 27, 2016.
www.ctinmateinfo.state.ct.us (last visited Jan. 17,
September 1, 2017 Initial Review Order, I dismissed from Case
No. 17cv1223 any claims relating to the time when Torrez was
a pretrial detainee at Northern under the prior pending
action doctrine and instructed Torrez that, if he wanted to
pursue those claims, he should amend his complaint in this
case. See Torrez v. Department of Correction, Case
No. 3:17-cv-1223 (SRU) (D. Conn.) (Doc. No. 7 at 6). Torrez
did not do so. The remaining claims in Case No. 17cv1223 are
Eighth Amendment claims for deliberate indifference to
serious mental health needs and supervisory liability at
Northern and MacDougall, covering the period commencing on
May 27, 2016.
defendants in the two cases, with the exception of
Commissioner Semple, are different and work at different
correctional facilities. The claims in this case relate to
treatment of a pretrial detainee, while the claims in Case
No. 17cv1223 concern treatment of a sentenced inmate. The law
regarding pretrial detainees and sentenced inmates differs.
Thus, there is no common question of law in the two cases. In
addition, although both cases reference Torrez'
confinement at Northern, the issue in this case concerns the
actions of the defendants in transferring him even though
they knew the effect the conditions at Northern would have on
Torrez' mental health issues. The issues in Case No.
17cv1223 concern the actual treatment provided by mental
health staff and the conditions to which he was subjected and
whether that treatment or those conditions violate the Eighth
Amendment. Torrez was afforded the opportunity to assert
conditions claims relating to his confinement at Northern
prior to May 2016 in this case but has chosen not to do so.
Thus, the claims in the two cases relate to different time
periods and different defendants and are governed by
different legal standards. I conclude that consolidation is
not warranted and Torrez' motion (doc. # 25) is denied.
Motion for Leave to Amend and for Reconsideration
second motion, Torrez seeks reconsideration of the dismissal
of the ADA claim and leave to file an amended complaint to
clarify the dates when he was a pretrial detainee and to
better pled the ADA claim that was dismissed in the Initial
Review Order. Torrez does not include a proposed amended
complaint with his motion.
for reconsideration must be filed within seven days from the
filing of the decision from which reconsideration is sought.
D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 7(c)1. The Initial Review Order was filed
on September 1, 2017. Torrez filed this motion on December 6,
2017, over three months later. Thus, the motion for
reconsideration (doc. # 26) is denied as untimely filed.
seeks leave to amend his complaint. Without a proposed
amended complaint, however, I cannot determine whether
amendment is warranted. The motion to ...