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.
Semple, No. 3:17-cv-1211 (SRU) (“Case No.
17cv1211”). 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. 17cv1211. 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.
No. 17cv1211 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, the Court 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.
case 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 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 Case No. 17cv1211.
See ECF No. 7 at 6. Torrez did not do so. The
remaining claims in this case are Eighth Amendment claims for
deliberate indifferent 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 Case No. 17cv1211
relate to treatment of a pretrial detainee, while the claims
in this case 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 Case No. 17cv1211
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. No staff
members at Northern are included as defendants in Case No.
17cv1211. The issues in this case concern the actual
treatment provided by mental health staff at Northern and the
conditions to which he was subjected there 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 Case No. 17cv1211 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. The Court concludes that consolidation is not
warranted and Torrez' motion (doc. # 43) 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. 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 and includes no explanation for
the delay. Thus, the motion for reconsideration (doc. # 44)
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 ...