Burgeson v. Downing et al
ORDER granting 67 Motion to Dismiss as to PROPOSED DEFENDANTS STEVE DEGRAND AND ROB DERRY. Signed by Judge Warren W. Eginton on 7/14/2009. Modified on 7/22/2009 TO ADD DISMISSED DEFENDANT'S NAMES TO THE DOCKET ENTRY (Simpson, T.).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
JOSEPH BURGESON v. DOWNING, et al.
: : : : :
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION Defendants Hamden Police Officers Falcigno, Sigmon and Onofrio Jr. and Deputy Chief Onofrio ("the Hamden defendants") move to dismiss all claims against Hamden Police Officers Degrand and Derry for plaintiff's failure to comply with the court's January 22, 2009 order. On January 22, 2009, the court granted plaintiff leave to amend his complaint to add as defendants Hamden Police Officers Degrand and Derry and EMTs Moreland and Blyth. The proposed
amended complaint included claims against State Troopers Faugnan and Vegliante in their official capacity. previously were dismissed. These claims
In addition, the court denied For these reasons,
plaintiff's claims for declaratory relief.
the court afforded plaintiff ten days to file an amended complaint containing only the pending claims and twenty days to complete service forms for the four newly added defendants. Plaintiff was cautioned that failure to comply with the order would result in the dismissal of all claims against the newly added defendants.
The Hamden defendants state that plaintiff still has not filed an amended complaint in accordance with the court's order and move to dismiss all claims against defendants Degrand and Derry. In response, plaintiff states that, on January 14, 2008, He concedes that he did
he relocated from Lebanon to New Haven.
not receive the order because he did not inform the court of his new address until February 9, 2009. The Clerk mailed him a
second copy of the ruling, which he received on February 10, 2009, but did not again provide service forms for him to complete and return. Plaintiff mailed an amended complaint, accompanied by a motion for extension of time to the court on February 19, 2009. The motion was granted and the amended complaint was filed on March 5, 2009. Plaintiff states that he contacted the court The same day, the Clerk To date, however,
regarding service forms on June 2, 2009. mailed him another set of service forms.
plaintiff has not completed and returned those forms to the court. The court excuses plaintiff's failure to return the first set of service forms because he did not receive them. The court
does not excuse plaintiff's failure to return the second set of forms, mailed on June 2, 2009. In conclusion, the Hamden defendants' motion to dismiss [doc. #67] is GRANTED as to all claims against Officers Degrand
All claims against EMTs Moreland and Blyth are
DISMISSED because plaintiff also did not return service forms for these defendants. SO ORDERED at Bridgeport, Connecticut, this 14th day of July 2009. /s/ Warren W. Eginton Senior United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?