Briscoe v. New Haven

Filing 100

ORDER (see attached) granting 52 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss; denying 63 Plaintiff's Motion to Amend; denying as moot 70 Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction; denying as moot 71 Plaintiff's Motion to Conduct Dis covery and Modify Protective Order; denying as moot 30 Sean Patton's Motion to Intervene; denying as moot 75 Sean Patton's Motion for an Order; denying as moot 77 Matthew Marcarelli's Motion to Intervene; denying as moot 81 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. Opinion to follow. Signed by Judge Charles S. Haight, Jr. on April 21, 2010. (Lacedonia, J.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT MICHAEL BRISCOE, Plaintiff, v. 3:09-cv-1642 (CSH) CITY OF NEW HAVEN, Defendant.

RULING ON PENDING MOTIONS HAIGHT, Senior District Judge: Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint [Doc. 52] is GRANTED. Plaintiff's Motion to File a Second Amended Complaint [Doc. 63] is DENIED. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint [Doc. 81], which was filed on a contingent basis should the amendment be permitted, is DENIED AS MOOT. All other pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT. This includes the Motions to Intervene by Sean Patton [Doc. 30] and Matthew Marcarelli [Doc. 77], and Sean Patton's Motion for a Ruling on his Motion to Intervene [Doc. 75], as well as Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction [Doc. 70] and Plaintiff's Motion to Conduct Discovery and Modify Protective Order [Doc. 71]. In light of these rulings, the hearing on Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction, which was tentatively scheduled for this Friday, April 23, 2010, is cancelled. A Memorandum of Opinion setting forth the reasons for these rulings will issue subsequently. SO ORDERED. Dated: New Haven, Connecticut, April 21, 2010. /s/ Charles S. Haight, Jr. ______ Charles S. Haight, Jr. Senior United States District Judge