United States District Court, D. Connecticut
MARK A. HENDERSON, Plaintiff,
LIEUTENANT TUTTLE, et al., Defendants.
RULING ON PENDING MOTIONS
R. Underhill United States District Judge.
11, 2018, the plaintiff, Mark A. Henderson, 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 five Connecticut Department of Correction
(“DOC”) officials claiming violations of his
Eighth Amendment protection against cruel and unusual
punishment. Am. Compl., Doc. No. 13. I permitted his Eighth
Amendment claims for excessive force and inhumane conditions
of confinement to proceed against three of the defendants in
their individual capacities for damages: Lieutenant Tuttle,
Lieutenant Blackstock, and Warden Faneuff. Initial Review
Order, Doc. No. 14, at 10. The defendants answered the
amended complaint on January 4, 2019. Answer, Doc. No. 27.
The following motions are pending in this action:
Henderson’s Motion to File Second Amended Complaint,
Doc. No. 17
Henderson’s Motion for Prejudgment Disclosure of
Assets, Doc. No. 21
Henderson’s Motion for Prejudgment Remedy, Doc. No. 22
Henderson’s Motions for Contempt, Doc. Nos. 24, 31
Henderson’s Motions for Telephonic Status Conference,
Doc. Nos. 34, 36, 38
Henderson’s Motion for Extension of Time to Complete
Discovery, Doc. No. 35
Defendants’ Motion for Extension of Time to Complete
Discovery, Doc. No. 37
Motion to Amend Complaint (Doc. No. 17)
plaintiff may amend his complaint once as a matter of right
within twenty-one days after service of the complaint or, if
a responsive pleading is required, within twenty-one days
after service of the responsive pleading. See Fed.
R. Civ. P. 15(a). In all other cases, the plaintiff may amend
his complaint only with the Court’s leave. Fed. R. Civ.
P. 15(a)(2). Rule 15(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure requires that permission to amend a complaint
“shall be freely given when justice so requires.”
“In the absence of any apparent or declared reason
– such as undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on
the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies
by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the
opposing party by virtue of the allowance of the amendment,
futility of the amendment, etc. – the leave should, as
the rules require, be ‘freely given.’”
Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962).
“This relaxed standard applies with particular force to
pro se litigants.” Pangburn v.
Culbertson, 200 F.3d 65, 70 (2d Cir. 1999) (internal
has already amended his complaint, and thus, seeks leave to
file a second amended complaint in what appears to be an
attempt to cure the deficiency of his claim for injunctive
relief. He sought an injunction ordering the defendants to
provide him with orthopedic examination and treatment for an
injury to his right leg, which he allegedly suffered from the
defendants’ action of placing him in in-cell
restraints. See Am. Compl., Doc. No. 13 at 14. I
dismissed the claim for injunctive relief because (1)
Henderson had been transferred out of the facility where the
alleged Eighth Amendment violations occurred, and (2) he
failed to allege any facts showing that he informed the
defendants about his leg injury. Initial Review Order, Doc.
No. 14 at 6. Although he alleges additional facts regarding
his leg injury in the proposed second amended complaint,
Henderson has not cured either of those factual deficiencies.
There are no allegations that defendants Tuttle, Blackstock,
and Faneuff ever became aware of Henderson’s leg
injury. The Eighth Amendment claims against them are grounded
in their use of pepper spray without justification and their
decision to place him in a restrictive confinement cell with
extremely unsanitary conditions. See Id. at 7-9.
Thus, because Henderson has failed to cure the factual
deficiencies of his claim for injunctive relief, his motion
to file a second amended complaint (doc. no. 17) is
DENIED. The case will proceed on the amended
complaint, Doc. No. 13.
Motions for Prejudgment Disclosure of Assets and Remedy
(Doc. Nos. 21, 22)
the defendants answered the amended complaint, Henderson
filed a motion for prejudgment disclosure of the
defendants’ assets and a prejudgment remedy in the
amount of $9,000. Mot. Prej. Discl., Doc. No. 21; Mot. Prej.
Remedy, Doc. No. 22. He argues that “there is probable
cause that a judgment will be rendered . . . in [his]
favor” and requests a hearing to determine whether such
probable cause exists. Mot. for Prej. Discl., Doc. No. 21 at
1. The defendants filed objections to both motions,
contending that the State of Connecticut has indemnified them
pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes § 5-141d, and
therefore, the disclosure of assets ...