Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Dorlette v. Iozia

United States District Court, D. Connecticut

October 23, 2018

FAROULH DORLETTE, Plaintiff,
v.
LIEUTENANT JOHN IOZIA, Defendant.

          RULING AND ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS

          Victor A. Bolden United States District Judge

         On 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.[1] 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.

         On May 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.

         On 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.

         Mr. 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.

         For the reasons set forth below, all of these motions are DENIED.

         I. Motion for Order and Notice

         On June 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.

         II. Motion for Order to Preserve Documentation

         Mr. 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.

         Mr. 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.

         III. Motion for Sanctions and/or Contempt

         Mr. 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.

         Because 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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.