Sadler v. Lantz et al
Filing
287
RULING denying 231 Motion to Stay; granting 232 Motion for Extension of Time ; denying 239 Motion to Amend/Correct; denying 239 Motion for Order; denying 240 Motion to Stay; granting 247 Motion for Leave to File. Signed by Judge Christopher F. Droney on 8/30/11. (Johnson, D.)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
GARY SADLER
v.
THERESA LANTZ, ET AL.
:
:
:
:
:
Case No. 3:07CV1316(CFD)
RULING ON PENDING MOTIONS
The plaintiff has filed two motions for stay, a motion for extension of time, a motion
to file a supplemental complaint and to conduct discovery and a motion for leave to file a
supplemental brief. For the reasons set forth below, the plaintiff’s motions for stay, to file
a supplemental complaint and to conduct discovery are denied and the motions for
extension of time and to file a supplemental brief are granted.
I.
Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Brief [Doc. No. 247]
On February 18, 2011, the plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a supplemental
complaint and to conduct additional discovery relating to claim one of his first amended
complaint. See Doc. No. 239. The plaintiff now seeks to file a “supplemental pleading” in
support of his motion for leave to conduct additional discovery. The court notes, however,
that the document that the plaintiff seeks to file is not a pleading as defined in Rule 7(a) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, but is actually a memorandum. Accordingly, the
court liberally construes the plaintiff’s motion as a motion for leave to file a supplemental
memorandum in support of the motion for leave to conduct additional discovery.
The motion is granted. The Clerk is directed to docket the document attached to
the plaintiff’s motion as a Supplemental Memorandum in Support of the Motion for Leave
to File a Supplemental Complaint and to Conduct Additional Discovery [Doc. No. 239].
The court will consider the supplemental memorandum below.
II.
Motion to File Supplemental Complaint and to Conduct
Additional Discovery [Doc. No. 239]
Motion to Stay [Doc. No. 240]
In December 2009, the plaintiff moved to stay the proceedings because he had
become aware that blood tests performed in June 2009 showed abnormalities that were
related to his gastrointestinal condition. He claimed that there were also blood test results
from May and August 2007, but those results were not in his medical file. In July 2010,
the plaintiff informed the court that he had been able to review blood test results from
March, May and August 2007 and sought leave to conduct discovery as to these blood
test results as well as the results from June 2009. The plaintiff also indicated that after
conducting additional discovery, he might want to file a second amended complaint. On
August 19, 2010, the court denied the plaintiff’s motions to stay the proceedings, conduct
additional discovery and to file a second amended complaint because the court concluded
that to permit the plaintiff to add new claims would prejudice the defendants and
unnecessarily delay the case.
The plaintiff again contends that he should be permitted to conduct additional
discovery and to file a second amended complaint or supplemental complaint to add facts
related to blood work that was performed in March, May and August of 2007 and June of
2009 as well as the results of an endoscopy performed in March 2010. He argues that
these test results are related to the claims that Dr. Silvis failed to properly diagnose and
treat his gastrointestinal symptoms from June 2004 to September 2008, and may show
2
that he in fact suffered from other conditions that may have caused his symptoms.
Generally, leave of court to amend pleadings should be freely given “when justice
so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a); Rachman Bag Co. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 46 F.3d 230
(2d Cir. 1995). In determining whether to grant leave to amend, however, the court
considers such factors as undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive, undue prejudice and
futility of the amendment. See Forman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962) (decision to
permit amendment of pleadings is within discretion of district court and is based on
multiple factors); State Teachers Retirement Board v. Fluor Corp., 654 F.2d 843, 856 (2d
Cir. 1981)(“Reasons for a proper denial of leave to amend include delay, bad faith, futility
of the amendment, and perhaps the most important, the resulting prejudice to the
opposing party.”).
Rule 15(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits a party to move to file a
supplemental pleading and the district court to grant such a motion, in the exercise of its
discretion, upon “reasonable notice” and “on just terms.” A motion to supplement
pleadings under Rule 15(d) is properly filed when a party seeks to plead a “transaction,
occurrence or event that happened after the date of the pleading to be supplemented.” Id.
Thus, a district court may grant permission to file supplemental pleadings under Rule
15(d), “when the supplemental facts connect it to the original pleading.” See Quaratino v.
Tiffany & Co., 71 F.3d 58, 66 (2d Cir. 1995); see also Corum v. Beth Israel Medical
Center, 359 F. Supp. 909, 914 (S.D.N.Y. 1973) (noting that supplementing pleadings with
transactions and occurrences since the date of the original proceedings complied with
Rule 15(d) and may support policy considerations such as judicial economy).
In deciding whether to grant a motion to supplement a pleading based on Rule
3
15(d), a district court should consider the following factors: “undue delay, bad fath, dilatory
tactics, undue prejudice to the opposing party or futility.” Quaratino, 71 F.3d at 66. Thus,
district courts should contemplate prejudice to the opposing party and, in their discretion
grant “supplementation [where it] will promote the economic and speedy disposition of the
controversy between the parties, will not cause undue delay or trial inconvenience, and will
not prejudice the rights of any other party.” Bornholdt v. Brady, 869 F.2d 57, 68 (2d Cir.
1989) (citations omitted).
Attached to the plaintiff’s motion are results of various blood and other tests. The
blood test results from March, May and August 2007 indicated slightly abnormal
Hematocrit and Platelet counts, the May 2007 blood tests were negative for the presence
of Helicobacter pylori (“H. pylori”) and the Upper Gastrointestinal (“UGI”) series performed
in August 2007 showed no evidence of esophageal or stomach conditions other than
Esophageal Reflux. These tests occurred prior to the filing of the amended complaint
dated September 8, 2008.
In June 2009, blood tests were positive for the presence of H. pylori. In March
2010, an endoscopy revealed no presence of H. pylori infection and no other
abnormalities of the plaintiff’s esophagus, stomach, small bowel or duodenum. An
impression of mild gastritis was subsequently ruled out by the pathology report. (See
Amended Answer, Doc. No. 189 at 48-49.) The plaintiff did not attach a proposed
supplemental complaint to his motion. Thus, it is unclear as to the specific supplemental
facts or occurrences he seeks to assert.
The plaintiff has not shown how the fact that the blood tests in 2007 may have
indicated that he was slightly anemic at the time is connected to the claim that Dr. Silvis
4
was deliberately indifferent to his gastrointestinal symptoms during the period from June
2004 to September 2008. To the extent that the plaintiff seeks to allege that the blood
tests from 2007 showed that he was anemic and Dr. Silvis failed to inform him of those
results or treat that condition, those allegations constitute new, unrelated claims. In
addition, any claim related to the June 2009 blood work results that showed a positive
finding for H pilori, including a failure to promptly treat that condition, are new and
unrelated claims. The court concludes that the addition of claims relating to the 2007
blood test results, the June 2009 blood tests and the March 2010 endoscopy would
unnecessarily delay the litigation of this action and also prejudice the defendant. See
Forman, 371 U.S. at 182. Justice does not require that the plaintiff be permitted to file an
supplemental or amended complaint to add new claims at this stage of the litigation.
Accordingly, the motion for leave to file a supplemental or second amended complaint and
to conduct discovery as to claim one of the first amended complaint is denied. The motion
for stay pending a ruling on the motion to file supplemental complaint is denied as moot.
The plaintiff may submit evidence of the 2007 and 2009 blood test results and the
2010 endoscopy results as well as his medical records containing the opinions of medical
personnel in support of or in opposition to a motion for summary judgment filed addressing
claim one of the first amended complaint.
IV.
Motion for Stay [Doc. No. 231]
The plaintiff seeks to stay the disposition of a ruling on the defendants’ motion for
summary judgment so that he can conduct additional discovery regarding some of the
statements included in the defendants’ Rule 56(a)1 Statement of Material Facts and their
Affidavits. The plaintiff files this motion pursuant to Rule 56(d), formerly 56(f), of the
5
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff claims that he cannot affirm or deny a
number of facts set forth in the Local Rule 56(a)1 Statement because the defendants’ did
not submit any documentation as to these facts. Thus, he seeks to conduct additional
discovery so that he can respond to the defendants’ Rule 56(a)1 Statement.
Rule 56(d), Fed. R. Civ. P. provides:
It a nonmovant shows by affidavit or declaration that, for
specified reasons, it cannot present facts essential to justify its
opposition, the court may:
(1) defer considering the motion or deny it;
(2) allow time to obtain affidavits or declarations of to take
discovery; or
(3) issue any other appropriate order.
Fed. R Civ. P. 56(f). The Second Circuit has held that a party seeking a continuance to
respond to a motion for summary judgment on the ground that it needs additional
discovery in order to defeat the motion must submit an affidavit. The affidavit must
describe “(1) what facts are sought [to resist the motion] and how they are to be obtained,
(2) how these facts are reasonably expected to create a genuine issue of material fact, (3)
what efforts the affiant has made to obtain them, and (4) why the affiant’s efforts were
unsuccessful.” Gulandi v. Adams, 385 F.3d 236, 244 (2d Cir. 2004) (citing Hudson River
Sloop Clearwater, Inc. v. Department of Navy, 891 F.2d 414, 422 (2d Cir. 1989)).
The defendants’ motion for summary judgment is directed at claim four which
includes allegations that defendants Murphy and Stolfi violated the plaintiff’s First
Amendment right to freedom of expression when a blank greeting card mailed to the
plaintiff from a relative in May 2007, was rejected as contraband pursuant to several State
of Connecticut Department of Correction Administrative Directives. In support of their
motion for summary judgment, the defendants argue that the plaintiff failed to allege that
6
Warden Murphy and Correctional Officer Stolfi violated his right to freedom of expression,
the administrative directives relied on by defendants Warden Murphy and Correctional
Officer Stolfi to reject the blank greeting card were rationally related to legitimate
penological interests and Warden Murphy and Correctional Officer Stolfi are protected by
the doctrine of qualified immunity.
The plaintiff mentions several facts or factual statements in the defendants’ Local
Rule 56(a)1 Statement that he claims not to be able to either admit or deny. The first
factual statement is set forth in paragraph five of the Local Rule 56(a)1 Statement. (See
Amended Local Rule 56(a)1 Statement, Doc. No. 213.) It reads as follows: “These
inmates (at MacDougall) present the highest risk of management because of the length of
their sentences, their criminal history, and the potential for escape and/or disruptive
behavior.” Id. at ¶ 5. This statement is attributed to Warden Murphy’s Affidavit filed in
support of the motion for summary judgment.
The plaintiff states that he cannot respond to this statement because Warden
Murphy has not submitted any information about inmates at MacDougall in relation to
inmates at other Department of Correction facilities. The plaintiff concedes, however, that
he knows this statement is false and misleading. Thus, the court fails to see why the
plaintiff cannot either admit or deny this fact. Furthermore, the plaintiff has not indicated
how any facts related to inmates at other Connecticut prison facilities that he might
uncover during additional discovery would create a genuine issue of material fact. There
have been no allegations that the administrative directives in question do not apply to all
prison facilities within Connecticut, regardless of their security/risk level. Accordingly, the
motion is denied as to this factual statement.
7
The second statement that the plaintiff claims not to be able to either admit or deny
is in fact not included in the Local Rule 56(a)1) Statement. The statement is made in
Warden Murphy’s Affidavit in paragraph fourteen. See id. That statement reads as
follows: “Second, if blank or unsigned greeting cards were allowed to be received here,
this would increase the opportunity for contraband to be introduced into this facility and
would impose additional burdens on the staff, which as previously indicated,
Administrative Directive 6.10 seeks to prevent.” Murphy Aff. at ¶ 14. Because this
statement is not included in the Local Rule 56(a)1 Statement, there is no basis for the
plaintiff’s claim that he cannot respond to it.
The plaintiff also objects to the fact that the Affidavits of Mail Handler William White
and Donald Dufree and Captain Michael Beaudry include references to having observed
incoming contraband, but have not attached the reports documenting these incidents. In
response to the plaintiff’s motion, the defendants have provided the plaintiff with the
reports documenting the incidents of the discovery of contraband in cards. Accordingly,
this claim is moot.
The plaintiff claims he cannot respond to statements made in the Affidavits of
Warden Murphy and Correctional Officer Stolfi regarding the type or value of cards for
sale outside the prison which might be sent to an inmate in prison.
The plaintiff claims that he cannot respond to these statements because he has no
information as to whether all greeting cards for sale outside of prison are different or have
more value. The plaintiff is not required to respond to the affidavits submitted by the
defendants. Furthermore, the plaintiff has alleged that prior to May 2007, he received
various blank greeting cards from relatives and vendors. (See Amended Compl. at 21.)
8
Thus, the plaintiff has some knowledge of the type of greeting cards available from outside
sources. The court fails to see why the plaintiff cannot respond to any statements relating
to the quality or variety of cards available from individuals or vendors outside of prison.
Accordingly, the motion is denied as to these statements of fact.
The plaintiff claims that defendant Murphy has not asserted what type of greeting
cards are available at the prison commissaries. Rather, he has stated that at the time
blank greeting cards mailed to the plaintiff were rejected, the commissary sold and
continues to sell “stationary, envelopes, postcards, greeting cards and postage.” This
statement quotes the current and former versions of State of Connecticut Administrative
Directive 10.7(4). The court cannot discern why the plaintiff cannot respond to this
statement as it appears in the defendants’ Local Rule 56(a)1 Statement. (See Amended
Local Rule 56(a)1 Statement at ¶ 85.) The plaintiff is not precluded from filing his own
affidavit regarding the types of greeting cards which are available or unavailable at the
commissary at MacDougall and then citing to this affidavit in support of his responses to
the defendants’ Local Rule 56(a)1 Statement.
The plaintiff also claims to be confused about statements in Captain Beaudry’s
Affidavit regarding a discontinued policy relating to items that could be mailed to inmates
and the Administrative Directives relating to items that could be mailed to inmates. The
plaintiff claims that he cannot respond to any statements regarding the past policy
because he does not know the exact nature of the policy or when it was in effect. The
plaintiff has not shown how information regarding this prior policy might “reasonably be
expected to create a genuine issue of material fact” as to claim four of the first amended
complaint. Gulandi, 385 F.3d at 244.
9
Furthermore, the statements in Captain Beaudry’s Affidavit as they relate to items
that are permitted to be mailed to inmates pursuant to the Department of Correction
Administrative Directives in effect at the time of the rejection of the greeting cards mailed
to the plaintiff are not contradictory. Captain Beaudry clearly stated that the only items
permitted to be mailed to inmates from individuals outside of prison are social and legal
correspondence and other items that have been specifically authorized by prison officials.
(See Mem. Supp. Mot. Summ. J., Beaudry Aff. at ¶¶ 5, 6.) Captain Beaudry repeatedly
stated that blank or unsigned greeting cards are not considered to be legal or social
correspondence or specifically authorized items. (See id.) Furthermore, the plaintiff
concedes that Captain Beaudry identified some of the specifically authorized items in
paragraph twelve of his affidavit.
The plaintiff also claims to be confused by statements in Warden Murphy’s Affidavit
regarding his interpretation of Administrative Directive 6.10. The plaintiff is not required to
respond to Warden Murphy’s Affidavit. The plaintiff has not identified any statements
relating to Administrative Directive 6.10 that are contained in the Local Rule 56(a)1
Statement that he cannot either admit or deny.
For the reasons set forth above, the plaintiff’s motion to stay the court’s ruling on
the motion for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56(d) to permit him additional time to
conduct discovery and respond to the motion for summary judgment is denied. The
plaintiff shall file his response to the motion for summary judgment, on or before
September 19, 2011.
III.
Motion for Extension of Time [Doc. No. 232]
The plaintiff seeks an extension of time until February 18, 2011, to file a motion for
10
summary judgment. The motion for extension of time is granted nunc pro tunc. To date,
the plaintiff has neglected to file a motion for summary judgment.
As indicated above, the plaintiff shall file his opposition to the defendants’ motion
for summary judgment addressed to claim four of the amended complaint on or before
September 19, 2011. If the plaintiff seeks to file a motion for summary judgment motion
addressed to claim one of the amended complaint, he shall do so on or before October
16, 2011.
Conclusion
The plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Brief [Doc. No. 247] is
GRANTED. The Clerk is directed to docket the document attached to the plaintiff’s motion
as a Supplemental Memorandum in Support of the Motion for Leave to File a
Supplemental Complaint and to Conduct Additional Discovery [Doc. No. 239]. The
plaintiff’s Motion to File Supplemental Complaint and to Conduct Additional Discovery
[Doc. No. 239] is DENIED. The Motion to Stay [Doc. No. 240] pending a ruling on the
motion to file supplemental complaint is DENIED as moot. The plaintiff’s Motion for Stay
[Doc. No. 231] the disposition of a ruling on the defendants’ motion for summary judgment
pursuant to Rule 56(f), Fed. R. Civ. P. is DENIED. The plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of
Time [Doc. No. 232] until February 18, 2011, to file a motion for summary judgment is
GRANTED nunc pro tunc.
The plaintiff shall file his opposition to the defendants’ motion for summary
judgment addressed to claim four of the amended complaint on or before September 19,
2011. If the plaintiff seeks to file a motion for summary judgment motion addressed to
11
claim one of the amended complaint, he shall do so on or before October 16, 2011.
SO ORDERED this 30th day of August 2011, at Hartford, Connecticut.
/s/ Christopher F. Droney
Christopher F. Droney
United States District Judge
12
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?