Garlington v. Clifford

          RULING AND ORDER ON MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT

          VICTOR A. BOLDEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Ernest Garlington (“Plaintiff”), incarcerated at the MacDougall-Walker Correctional Institution in Suffield, Connecticut, and proceeding pro se, has sued Susan Clifford and Coldwell Banker Real Estate Agency (“Coldwell Banker”) (collectively “Defendants”) under 42 U.S.C § 1983 for conspiring to violate his rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and under 42 U.S.C. § 1985.

         Mr. Garlington has moved for an extension of time to move for reconsideration and separately moved for reconsideration of the Court's March 24, 2018, Order denying as futile Mr. Garlington's motion to amend the First Amended Complaint.

         For the following reasons, both motions are DENIED.

         I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

         A. Factual Allegations

         The Court assumes the reader's familiarity with the factual allegations of the underlying matter, see generally Garlington v. Clifford, No. 3:17-CV-726 (VAB), 2018 WL 1472519 (D. Conn. Mar. 24, 2018), and will include here only those facts necessary to resolve this motion.

         Mr. Garlington is currently serving a thirty-three year term of incarceration for allegedly conspiring to murder the ex-husband of Mr. Garlington's wife. Am. Compl. at 19. Mr. Garlington claims that he has been deprived of his right to “meaningful, adequate and effective access to the court.” Second Am. Compl. at 19.

         The proposed Second Amended Complaint alleges that Susan Storey is Chief of the Connecticut Public Defender Service. Second Am. Comp. at 5. Mr. Garlington alleges that Ms. Storey, along with Deputy Chief Brian Carlow and Director of Assigned Counsel John Day, allegedly assigned Attorneys McIntyre, Koch, and DeRosa to Mr. Garlington's case. Second Am. Compl. at 8-10. Mr. Garlington further alleges that Ms. Storey failed to supervise the assigned public defenders which “allowed the assigned counsels defendants Bruce McIntyre, Theodore Koch and David DeRosa to permit this conspiracy to obstruct the due course of justice to go undetected.” Second Am. Compl. at 12.

         B. Procedural Background

         Mr. Garlington filed a Complaint with this Court on May 2, 2017, ECF No. 1, and an amended one on June 26, 2017. ECF No. 12. This Amended Complaint is the operative one.

         On December 27, 2017, Mr. Garlington moved to amend the First Amended Complaint. ECF No. 57. The proposed Second Amended Complaint sought declaratory relief and money damages. Sec. Am. Compl. at 12-13. The Court denied that motion as futile on March 24, 2018, and dismissed Mr. Garlingtons case for failure to state a claim. ECF No. 67.

         On April 18, 2018, Mr. Garlington moved for an enlargement of time to file a motion for reconsideration. ECF No. 70. The following day, he moved for reconsideration of the Court's March 24, 2018, Order denying the motion amend the First Amended Complaint. ECF No. 69.

         II. ...