United States District Court, D. Connecticut
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 ...