Townsend v. Muckle

          RULING ON PENDING MOTIONS

          Stefan R. Underhill United States District Judge.

         On December 12, 2017, Timothy Townsend, Jr., an inmate currently confined at the MacDougall-Walker Correctional Institution in Suffield, Connecticut, filed an amended civil rights complaint pro se under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against nine Connecticut Department of Correction (“DOC”) officials in their individual capacities claiming violations of his constitutional and state law rights. Am. Compl., Doc. No. 10. The nine defendants are Correction Officer Wales, Lieutenant Congelos, Captain Dougherty, Correction Officer Joshua Lorenzen, Correction Officer John Doe 1, Correction Officer John Doe 2, Lieutenant Santiago Rangel, Correction Officer “Steven” Nemeth, and District Administrator Angel Quiros. I permitted his Eighth Amendment claims for excessive force and deliberate indifference to safety to proceed against Wales, Doe 1, and Doe 2 and his state law assault and battery claim to proceed against Wales. Review of Am. Compl., Doc. No. 13 at 18. I also permitted Townsend’s First Amendment retaliation claim to proceed against Lorenzen, his state law due process claim to proceed against Nemeth and Congelos, and his spoliation claim to proceed against Dougherty. Id. The following motions are pending in this case:

Motion for Subpoena of Information, Doc. No. 20

Motion for Prejudgment Remedy, Doc. No. 21

Motion for Misjoinder of Defendant Muckle, Doc. No. 22

Motions for Default Entry, Doc. Nos. 23, 25, 38

Second Motion for Extension of Time to Identify Doe Defendants, Doc. No. 35

Motion to Compel Discovery, Doc. No. 37

Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Doc. No. 42

         I will address each motion in turn.

         I. Request for Subpoena of Information (Doc. No. 20)

         Townsend first requests that Commissioner Semple disclose the full names and home addresses of the defendants in this case. Commissioner Semple is not a defendant to this action, and Townsend is suing the defendants, Wales, Doe 1, Doe 2, Lorenzen, Nemeth, Congelos, and Dougherty, only in their individual capacities. Moreover, counsel has since appeared on behalf of all named defendants in this case. See Notices of Appearance, Doc. Nos. 26, 32. Therefore, the motion for subpoena of information (doc. no. 20) is DENIED.

         II. Motion for Prejudgment Remedy (Doc. No. 21)

         On December 6, Townsend filed a motion for a prejudgment remedy in the amount of $50,000 from each identified defendant in this action, claiming that “there is probable cause that a judgment will be rendered in [his] favor,” and a motion for the defendants to disclose their assets. Appl. for Prejudgment ...