United States District Court, D. Connecticut
RULING AND ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS
A. Bolden United States District Judge
November 14, 2016, Faroulh Dorlette (“Plaintiff”)
sued Lieutenant John Iozia, Nurse Jeff Doe 1, and Nurse Donna
Doe 2 for violating his civil rights by placing him on
in-cell restraints status for twenty-four hours on June 23,
2016. See Complaint, dated Nov. 14,
2016, ECF No. 1. Mr. Dorlette is currently incarcerated at
the MacDougall -Walker Correctional Institution in Suffield,
Connecticut. See Notice of Change of Address, filed
June 21, 2018, ECF No. 35.
9, 2017, the Court dismissed all of Mr. Dorlette's
official capacity claims against Defendants, as well as his
Fourteenth Amendment due process claim asserted against the
Defendants in their individual capacities, but found that the
Eighth Amendment claims for deliberate indifference to health
and safety, unconstitutional conditions of confinement and
excessive force could proceed against the defendants in their
individual capacities, and that the claim of conspiracy to
violate Mr. Dorlette's constitutional rights could
proceed against Lieutenant Iozia and Nurse Jeff Doe 1 in
their individual capacities. See Initial Review
Order, dated May 9, 2017, ECF No. 16, at 7.
December 21, 2017, the Court dismissed all claims against
Nurse Jeff Doe 1 and Nurse Donna Doe 2 for failure to effect
timely service under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).
See Order, dated Dec. 21, 2017, ECF No. 23. Thus,
the only remaining claims before the Court are Mr.
Dorlette's Eighth Amendment claims against Lieutenant
John Iozia (“Defendant” or “Lt.
Iozia”) in his individual capacity.
Dorlette has several motions pending before the Court: a
motion for order and notice, a motion to preserve
documentation, a motion for sanctions and/or contempt, and a
motion for reconsideration. See Motion for Order
& Notice, dated June 18, 2018 (“Mailing
Mot.”), ECF No. 34; Motion for Order to Preserve
Documentation, dated June 20, 2018 (“Preservation
Mot.”), ECF No. 31; Motions for Contempt, Sanctions,
and Reconsideration, dated July 6, 2018 (“Combined
Mots.”), ECF No. 36.
reasons set forth below, all of these motions are
Motion for Order and Notice
18, 2018, Mr. Dorlette moved for an order directing the Clerk
of the Court to mail copies of any orders, rulings, documents
or other filings to him at a prison facility in Ohio. Because
Mr. Dorlette has been transferred back to a Connecticut
facility, see Notice of Change of Address, filed
June 21, 2018, ECF No. 35, Mr. Dorlette's motion is
denied as moot.
Motion for Order to Preserve Documentation
Dorlette claims that a “hand-held audio/video
camera” recorded his placement on in-cell restraints
status. See Preservation Mot. He asserts that this
videotape as well as incident and medical records relating to
his placement on in-cell restraints are vital to this case,
and therefore moves for an order directing Defendant to
preserve the videotape and reports. Id.
Dorlette does not indicate that these documents are in danger
of being destroyed, nor does he indicate that he has
attempted to submit a request to Defendant or counsel for the
defendants to preserve the videotape and reports.
Accordingly, Mr. Dorlette's motion is denied without
prejudice for lack of good cause shown.
Motion for Sanctions and/or Contempt
Dorlette moves for sanctions and/or a finding of contempt Lt.
Iozia, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 70(e), which
provides for enforcement of a judgment for a specific act.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 70(e). This rule, however, is not applicable to
Mr. Dorlette's motion because the Court has not entered
any judgment requiring Lt. Iozia to perform a specific act.
this Circuit, however, requires that the Court read pro se
filings liberally to raise the strongest argument they
suggest, Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470
F.3d 471, 474 (2d Cir. 2006) (collecting cases), the Court
construes Mr. Dorlette's motion as a request that the
Court sanction Lt. Iozia for his excessive delays in
defending this action, including his ...