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.

Hubert v. Department of Corrections

United States District Court, D. Connecticut

July 9, 2018

SHARONE HUBERT, Plaintiff,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS et al., Defendants.

          RULING AND ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S NUNC PRO TUNC MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

          VICTOR A. BOLDEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Sharone Hubert (“Plaintiff”) has sued Cicero Callender (“Defendant”), a lieutenant with the Connecticut Department of Correction (“DOC”), under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging discrimination on the basis of her sex in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.

         Plaintiff moves, nunc pro tunc, for reconsideration of the Court's March 30, 2018 Order, granting in part and denying in part Defendant's motion to dismiss.

         For the reasons that follow, the Court VACATES its May 10, 2018, Order, ECF No. 43, and DENIES the motion.

         I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

         A. Factual Allegations

         Ms. Hubert is an African-American woman, and she alleges that she endured sexual harassment, sexual assault, and race- and gender-based discrimination while she worked at DOC. Compl. ¶ 34. The Court will discuss additional facts as necessary for the resolution of this motion.

         B. Procedural Background

         On February 16, 2017, Ms. Hubert sued the Department of Corrections, Kyle Godding, Michael Davis, Kevin Curry, and Cicero Callender (collectively “Defendants”), who are all DOC employees and officials. This case is the second in a pair of related cases brought by Ms. Hubert.

         In the first, Hubert v. Connecticut Dep't of Correction (“Hubert I”), the Court dismissed all claims against Defendants Davis, Godding, Curry, and Callender for lack of personal jurisdiction. No. 14-cv-00476 (VAB), 2016 WL 706166, at *11 (D. Conn. Feb. 22, 2016).[1]

         Ms. Hubert filed this second lawsuit on February 16, 2017, re-asserting claims against the Department of Correction, Kyle Godding, Michael Davis, Kevin Curry, and Cicero Callender in their individual capacities. Hubert v. Corrections, et al., No. 3:17-cv-248 (“Hubert II”), Compl., ECF No. 1. Ms. Hubert argued that the Court had federal question jurisdiction over the case because she brought claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, and 1988, and under Connecticut General Statute § 52-592, a savings provision for accidental failure of suit. Am. Compl. ¶ 2, ECF No. 15.

         Defendants moved to dismiss this case under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. ECF No. 20. In relevant part, Defendants asserted that most of Ms. Hubert's claims were barred by a three-year statute of limitations, and that the alleged incidents that occurred after February 2014 fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Defendants' motion to dismiss was denied as to Count Three against Mr. Callender, and was granted as to all other counts.

         After twice seeking an extension of time, Ms. Hubert moved, nunc pro tunc, for reconsideration of the Court's ruling on Defendant's motion to dismiss. ECF No. 42. The Court erred in granting the motion, ECF No. 41, without consideration of Defendants' timely filed opposition, ECF No. 49, and now, sua sponte, vacates the Order and addresses Ms. Hubert's motion.

         II. ...


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.