United States District Court, D. Connecticut
RULING AND ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S NUNC PRO TUNC
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
A. BOLDEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
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
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.
reasons that follow, the Court VACATES its
May 10, 2018, Order, ECF No. 43, and DENIES
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
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.
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.
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,
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.
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.
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.