United States District Court, D. Connecticut
RULING ON PENDING MOTIONS
ALVIN W. THOMPSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
plaintiff is currently incarcerated at Northern Correctional
Institution. He filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 and the Americans with Disabilities Act
(“ADA”) against the Department of Correction,
Warden Allison Black, Deputy Warden Kim Jones, Health
Services Administrator Bryan Liebel, Correctional Officer J.
Alexander and Nurse Jane Doe. Pending before the court are
the plaintiff's motions to compel and for appointment of
Motion to Compel [ECF No. 26]
December 18, 2017, the court dismissed all claims against the
State of Connecticut Department of Correction, the claims for
monetary damages and injunctive and declaratory relief
against the remaining defendants in their official capacities
and the Fifth and Eighth Amendment claims and the ADA claim
against the remaining defendants in their individual
capacities. See Initial Review Order, ECF No. 13, at 20. The
court concluded that the Fourteenth Amendment deliberate
indifference to safety and deliberate indifference to medical
needs claims would proceed against defendants Black, Jones,
Liebel, Alexander and Jane Doe in their individual
capacities. See Id. at 14, 18. The court informed
the plaintiff that the Clerk could not serve the complaint on
the Jane Doe defendant without knowing her first and last
name and permitted the plaintiff sixty days to provide the
court with the first and last name of the Jane Doe defendant.
April 4, 2018, the plaintiff informed the court that the Jane
Doe defendant was Licensed Practical Nurse M. Gary. See Mot.
Extension Time, ECF No. 23, at 3. The plaintiff sought an
extension of time to identify Nurse Gary's first name. On
April 5, 2018, the court granted the motion and directed the
plaintiff to file a notice indicating the first and last name
of Nurse M. Gary and to file an amended complaint listing
Nurse M. Gary as a defendant by May 21, 2018.
13, 2018, the plaintiff filed a motion to compel disclosure.
He seeks an order directing the defendants to disclose the
first name of Nurse M. Gary. The plaintiff claims that he is
unable to obtain this information because he is incarcerated.
court has verified with the State of Connecticut Department
of Correction Office of Legal Affairs that Licensed Practical
Nurse Monique Gary is currently employed at New Haven
Correctional Center. Accordingly, the court will direct the
Clerk to serve a copy of the complaint, the initial review
order and this order on LPN Monique Gary in her individual
capacity at New Haven Correctional Center. In view of this
order, the motion to compel the defendants to disclose the
first name of Nurse Gary is being denied as moot.
Motion for Appointment of Counsel [ECF No. 28]
plaintiff seeks the appointment of pro bono counsel as an
accommodation under ADA. The plaintiff claims that he has a
learning disability, is illiterate and does not know how to
write. He has relied on other inmates to draft his complaint
and to file motions in this case. He asserts that ‘[h]e
has been recognized in the Judicial System, priorly, to be
illiterate and unable to write due to his learning
disability.” As indicated above, the court has
dismissed the plaintiff's claims that the defendants
violated his rights under the ADA.
plaintiff states that an attorney at the Inmate Legal Aid
Program (“ILAP”) sent him materials but he cannot
comprehend them. He contends that attorneys at ILAP cannot
draft motions on his behalf pursuant to ILAP's contract
with the Department of Correction.
court notes that State of Connecticut Department of
Correction Administrative Directive 10.3 provides that the
Department of Correction “shall contract with a law
firm/agency to provide legal assistance to inmates and inmate
access to the civil judicial system.” Id. at
10.3(3). The scope of the services provided by the law firm
or agency includes rendering assistance “through
advice, counsel and physical preparation of meaningful legal
papers such as writs, complaints, motions and memorandum of
law for claims having legal merit.” Id. at
plaintiff does not indicate whether he has communicated with
ILAP by telephone. Although the attorneys at ILAP may not be
able to represent the plaintiff in this action, they may be
available to speak to him by telephone and to answer
questions or provide instruction on how to file or respond to
motions or conduct discovery and also may be available to
draft motions or memoranda in response to motions. Thus, the
plaintiff has not demonstrated that assistance is not
available through ILAP.
addition, in this district there are limited resources in
terms of counsel who are available to accept pro bono
appointments. The record as it stands, without an answer or
motion having been filed in opposition to the complaint, does
not support a finding that the plaintiff's claims pass
the test of likely merit. See Hodge v. Police Officers, 802
F.2d 58, 60-62 (1986). Thus, the appointment of counsel at
this time would not be a good use of a limited resource. The
motion for appointment of counsel is denied without ...