Stanley v. Meier et al

Filing 96

ORDER denying 95 Motion to Reclaim. See attached memorandum of decision. Signed by Judge Vanessa L. Bryant on September 12, 2012. (Butler, Ayanna)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

STEVEN K. STANLEY,
Plaintiff,
v.
SERGEANT WILLIAM MEIER, et al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Case No. 3:09cv1643 (VLB)

RULING ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO RECLAIM [Doc. # 95]
On June 21, 2012, the court granted the defendants’ motion for summary
judgment. Judgment entered closing this case on June 22, 2012. The plaintiff
then filed a notice of appeal. The appeal currently is pending. The plaintiff now
has filed a motion in which he states that the defendants failed to provide in
discovery a copy of the videotape of the incident.
“The filing of a notice of appeal is an event of jurisdictional significance–it
confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court of its
control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal.” Griggs v.
Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982). The plaintiff asks the
court to order the defendants to provide an item of discovery and, presumably,
reopen the case to consider this information. Thus, the motion concerns the
ruling and judgment that are the subject of the pending appeal. Until such time
as the appeal is concluded or withdrawn, the district court lacks jurisdiction to

consider the merits of the plaintiff’s motion.
Further, the court specifically explained to the plaintiff the proper
procedures for filing a motion to compel if the defendants failed to produce
requested discovery. See Doc. #55 (filed April 14, 2011). Thus, the plaintiff was
on notice for over a year before the court ruled on the defendants’ motion for
summary judgment the procedure to obtain a copy of the videotape. He still has
not filed a proper motion to compel.
In addition, the information sought does not appear relevant to the claims
in this case. The plaintiff alleged in his complaint one incident of alleged use of
excessive force and a thirty-minute delay following that use of force in providing
medical attention. In his motion, he argues that he requires the videotape to
establish his claim that he was denied medical attention for four hours. As the
complaint contains no other alleged use of force occurring four hours before the
plaintiff was taken to the hospital, evidence supporting such a claim is not
relevant to this issues presented in this case.
The plaintiff’s motion [Doc. #95] is DENIED.
It is so ordered.

/s/
Vanessa L. Bryant
United States District Judge
Dated at Hartford, Connecticut: September 12, 2012.

2