United States District Court, D. Connecticut
EARNEST C. GARLINGTON, Plaintiff,
SUSAN CLIFFORD et al., Defendants.
RULING AND ORDER ON MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND
A. BOLDEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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.
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.
following reasons, both motions are DENIED.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.