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.

Conquistador v. Adamaitis

United States District Court, D. Connecticut

January 7, 2020

JEAN KARLO CONQUISTADOR, Plaintiff,
v.
ADAMAITIS, Defendant.

          ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS

          Kari A. Dooley United States District Judge

         Preliminary Statement

         Plaintiff, Jean Karlo Conquistador (“Conquistador”), currently confined at Bridgeport Correctional Center in Bridgeport, Connecticut, filed this complaint pro se under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Conquistador asserts claims for deliberate indifference to safety and failure to protect him from harm as well as retaliation against one defendant, Lieutenant Adamaitis.

         Pending are Conquistador's second motion for reconsideration, and motions for court intervention, for permission to serve interrogatories, for oral argument, to strike deposition, for extension of discovery, for appointment of counsel, for video conference, and to compel. For the following reasons, Conquistador's motions are denied.

         Motion for Intervention

         Conquistador states that his counselor has told him that double-sided documents cannot be electronically filed and that he is being charged photocopy fees when he submits a document for electronic filing. Conquistador also complained that he has observed correctional officers using cell phones. He asks the court to intervene and prohibit these practices.

         In response, the defendants explain that the photocopy machines cannot scan and electronically file double-sided documents. The charges were for copies of the back sides of the pages to enable correctional staff to scan and electronically file the plaintiff's document with all pages in order. Conquistador was advised that there was no charge for electronic filing and that he could avoid the copy charges if he submitted single-sided documents for filing. In addition, Warden Martin, the warden at the correctional facility where Conquistador is incarcerated, has intervened and ordered that Conquistador's documents, even if double-sided, be electronically filed without charging him for the extra copies. Thus, this issue has been resolved and court intervention is not needed.

         As to the use of cell phones by correctional staff, Conquistador has no right to enforce correctional employment policies. To the extent he believes the use of cell phones by a correctional officer has an impact on him, Conquistador, per Warden Martin, may raise such issues through the appropriate chain of command. Federal courts are extremely reluctant to interject themselves into the day-to-day administration of state correctional facilities. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 491-92 (1973) (explaining the reluctance of federal courts to interfere in state judicial proceedings applies equally to state administrative concerns, such as running correctional facilities). This court sees no reason to further address this issue. Conquistador's motion for court intervention is denied.

         Second Motion for Reconsideration

         Conquistador has filed a second motion for reconsideration of the order denying his motion for appointment of counsel. On July 19, 2019, the court denied Conquistador's motion for appointment of counsel without prejudice to refiling if he could demonstrate that he is unable to obtain assistance from Inmates' Legal Aid Program and if the facts developed through litigation demonstrate that his claims have likely merit. Doc. No. 21. Although Conquistador titles this motion a second motion for reconsideration, he did not seek reconsideration of the denial of his motion for appointment of counsel. In any event, motions for reconsideration must be filed and served within seven days from the filing of the decision or order from which reconsideration is sought. D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 7(c)1. Conquistador filed this motion on November 20, 2019, four months after the order denying his motion for appointment of counsel. Conquistador's motion is denied as untimely.

         Motion for Permission to Serve Interrogatories

         Conquistador seeks permission to serve up to 100 interrogatories on defendant Adamaitis. The court previously denied Conquistador's motion to serve additional discovery requests on the defendant, noting that Conquistador had not attached proposed discovery requests or indicated what additional information he seeks. The court denied the motion without prejudice to refiling with the necessary information or attachments. Conquistador does not attach proposed interrogatories to his motion or describe what additional information he requires. As he has not complied with the court's directions, the motion for permission to serve additional interrogatories is denied.

         Motion for Oral Argument

         Conquistador seeks oral argument on his motion for appointment of counsel. As the court denied that motion in July 2019 and has denied his motion for reconsideration, oral argument ...


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.