Thompson v. Lanz et al

Filing 167

ORDER: The plaintiff's motion in which he requests that the court deny the state defendants' motion for summary judgment 151 ; grant him an extension of time in which to respond to the defendants' motion for summary judgment until "satisfaction of full discovery" 151 and appoint him counsel is denied. See attached ruling. Signed by Judge Donna F. Martinez on 12/10/10. (Constantine, A.)

Thompson v. Lanz et al

Doc. 167

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT SALA-THIEL THOMPSON, Plaintiff, v. THERESA C. LANTZ, et al., Defendants. : : : : : : : : :

CASE NO. 3:04CV2084(AWT)

RULING ON "PLAINTIFF'S MOTION REQUESTING DENIAL OF STATE DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND EXTENSION OF TIME UNTIL SATISFACTION OF FULL DISCOVERY AND/OR COUNSEL'S APPOINTMENT" The plaintiff, a federal inmate proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action against, inter alia, Commissioner of the State of Connecticut Department of Correction Theresa Lantz, Warden Wayne Choinski, District Administrator Mark Strange, Correctional Officer Steven Philippi, and Warden James Dzurenda (hereinafter "state defendants"). Pending before the court is the plaintiff's motion

in which he requests that the court: (1) deny the state defendants' motion for summary judgment; (2) grant him an extension of time in which to respond to the defendants' motion for summary judgment until "satisfaction of full discovery" and (3) appoint him counsel. (Doc. #151.) is denied. The following procedural background is relevant to the For the reasons that follow, the plaintiff's motion

plaintiff's motion.

In response to a motion for an extension of

time filed by the State defendants, the court issued an order on

Dockets.Justia.com

September 25, 2009 in which it stated that although the court's docket revealed a pending motion to compel directed at the federal defendants, it did "not show a pending motion to compel directed at the state defendants." (Doc. #116.) On October 15, 2009, the

plaintiff filed a "Clarification to Court concerning Plaintiff's motion to compel state defendants." (Doc. #118.) In this

submission, the plaintiff stated that on November 17, 2008, he had served the state defendants and filed with the District Court an "Informal Motion to Compel." He did not address why the docket did

not show such a motion or attach copies of the motion or the discovery requests at issue. "informal motion to compel." On April 30, 2010, the state defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. (Doc. #143.) On June 25, 2010, the plaintiff (Doc. #154.) He did not attempt to re-file the

filed a memorandum in opposition.

On May 14, 2010, the plaintiff filed the instant motion requesting that the court deny the state defendant's motion for summary judgment until "satisfaction of full discovery" and grant him an extension of time in which to respond to the defendants' motion. (Doc. #151.) As he did in his "clarification," the

plaintiff represents that he served the state defendants with a motion to compel in November 2008 to which he has not received responses. (Doc. #151.) The plaintiff does not attach copies of

his discovery requests.

2

Notwithstanding his "clarification," the plaintiff has been on notice for more than a year that the court record does not reflect that he has any pending motion to compel directed at the state defendants. Further, the court does not have the discovery

requests at issue.

Discovery is long closed and as indicated, the

plaintiff has responded to the defendants' motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff's requests that the court deny the state

defendants' motion for summary judgment and grant him an extension of time in which to respond to the defendants' motion for summary judgment until "satisfaction of full discovery" are denied. Finally, the plaintiff's ninth request for appointment of counsel1 is denied. The court previously has addressed the merits See doc. #87-88.

of the plaintiff's request.

SO ORDERED at Hartford, Connecticut this 10th day of December, 2010.

__________/s/________________ Donna F. Martinez United States Magistrate Judge

The plaintiff's previous requests appear on the docket as docket entries 6, 17, 25, 48, 64, 74, 76, 86. 3

1