Alston v. Pafumi et al

Filing 105

RULING ON PENDING MOTIONS (see attached) granting 92 Motion for Clarification, which clarification is provided herein; granting 92 Motion for Reconsideration, but upon reconsideration, affirming the prior ruling; denying as unnecessary 93 Motion for Extension of Time; denying 98 Motion to Expedite; and denying 99 Motion for a Favorable Ruling. Signed by Judge Charles S. Haight, Jr. on September 12, 2011. (Lacedonia, J.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

IRA ALSTON
v.

CASE NO. 3:09CV1978 (CSH)

MICHAEL PAFUMI, ET AL.

RULING ON PENDING MOTIONS
Pending before the court is the plaintiff’s motion for clarification and/or motion for
reconsideration, a motion for extension of time and two motions seeking a ruling on the motion
for clarification and for reconsideration. For the reasons set forth below, the motion for
clarification is granted, the motion for reconsideration is granted, but after careful review, the
relief requested is denied and the motions for extension of time and for a ruling on the motions
for clarification and reconsideration are denied.
I.

Motion for Clarification and/or Motion for Reconsideration [Doc. No. 92]
Motions to Expedite and for Favorable Ruling [Docs. Nos. 98, 99]
On May 18, 2011, the court ruled on a number of motions filed by the plaintiff. (See

Ruling on Pending Motions, Doc. No. 91.) The plaintiff now seeks clarification as to the ruling
on one motion and reconsideration as to the ruling on several other motions.
The plaintiff seeks clarification of the court’s ruling on his motion to withdraw his
motion to stay rulings. The motion for clarification is granted. The plaintiff notes that in the
introductory paragraph of the ruling, the court indicated that his motion to withdraw the motion
to stay rulings would be granted. In the section of the ruling addressing the motion to withdraw,
however, the court noted that it had already ruled on the motion the plaintiff sought to withdraw,
so the motion to withdraw was moot. Thus, the court denied the motion to withdraw as moot.

(See id. at 1.) In the conclusion of the ruling, the court reiterated its decision denying the motion
to withdraw as moot. In addition, the docket sheet reflects that the motion to withdraw was
denied as moot. That is the status of this aspect of the case. To the extent the ruling requires
clarification, this discussion supplies it.
The plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the court’s ruling on the renewed motion to
compel the defendants to respond to his June 23, 2010 correspondence requesting documents.
He contends that the court should have granted the motion. The court denied the motion to
compel on multiple grounds. (See id. at 2-4.)
The standard for granting a motion for reconsideration is strict. See Shrader v. CSX
Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995). A motion for reconsideration permits the court
“to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to consider newly discovered evidence . . . .”
LoSacco v. City of Middletown, 822 F. Supp. 870, 876-77 (D. Conn. 1993), aff’d, 33 F.3d 50 (2d
Cir. 1994) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
The plaintiff disagrees with the reasons for the denial of the renewed motion to
compel, but points to no errors requiring reconsideration. The plaintiff objects to the fact that the
court referred to the June 23, 2010 request for documents as correspondence. He claims that he
never referred to the request as a letter to counsel. The plaintiff’s motion to compel and
memorandum and exhibit in support of the motion belie this claim. First, the plaintiff concedes
in his motion that he no longer possesses a copy of his June 23, 2010 request for documents that
he mailed to counsel for the defendants. Thus, he cannot confirm whether it was a letter to
counsel or a request for production of documents. Second, the plaintiff refers to the June 23,
2010 request for documents as a letter or correspondence in his letter to counsel dated December
23, 2010. (See Mem. Supp. Mot. Compel, Doc. No. 75, Ex. A.) Third, counsel for the
2

defendants described the June 23, 2010 request, as a letter addressed to her and seeking specified
items. (See Obj. Mot. Compel, Doc. No. 59.) Accordingly, the plaintiff’s objection to the
court’s characterization of this document request as correspondence addressed to counsel for the
defendants is unfounded.
The plaintiff also objects to the fact that the court found that his correspondence
addressed to counsel for the defendants did not comply with Rule 34(a), Fed. R. Civ. P. That
rule requires that requests for production of documents be addressed to and served on parties. A
letter to counsel for the defendants seeking documents is not a request for production of
documents addressed to a party or served on a party to this litigation.
The plaintiff disagrees with the court’s conclusion that incident, disciplinary, medical
and classification reports relating to incidents that occurred in 2010 are not relevant to the claims
in the amended complaint. The plaintiff claims that he has asserted allegations of retaliation that
occurred in 2010 in his amended complaint or in the alternative that he wants to explore the
possibility of filing a second amended complaint to add such allegations. The claims in the
amended complaint pertain to his placement in in-cell restraints in October and November 2009.
There are no allegations of retaliatory actions that occurred in 2010. At the this stage of the
proceedings, the court will not permit the plaintiff to conduct discovery to determine if he might
want to file a second amended complaint to add new allegations that occurred in 2010 or 2011.
For all of the reasons above, the motion for reconsideration is granted as to ruling on the renewed
motion to compel, but after careful reconsideration, the relief requested is denied.
The plaintiff also seeks reconsideration of the court’s ruling denying the motion to set
aside an Order [Doc. No. 72] issued by Magistrate Judge Margolis. (See id. at 6-8.) The motion
for reconsideration is granted. After careful review, the court finds no error in denying the
3

motion to set aside the order. Thus, the relief requested is denied and the ruling is affirmed.
The plaintiff contends that the court’s ruling on his motion for modification of
scheduling order deadlines [Doc. No. 61], was erroneous because he never filed such a motion.
He claims that in [Doc. No. 80], a motion to modify the scheduling order, he sought to extend the
deadline for completing discovery to June 30, 2011 and the deadline for filing motions for
summary judgment until July 31, 2011. On February 10, 2011, the court denied the motion as
moot. The plaintiff contends that he never re-filed a motion to extend the scheduling order
deadlines.
It is apparent that the plaintiff is confused as to the content of both of these motions.
The Motion to Modify Scheduling Order [Doc. No. 80] is dated February 19, 2010. It was not
docketed until February 10, 2011 because it had been inadvertently attached to another document
in the court’s file and was not discovered until February 2011. In that motion, the plaintiff asked
the court to issue a new scheduling order containing deadlines for completion of discovery and
for filing motions for summary judgment after counsel appeared for the defendants because he
claimed that he would be moving to enjoin the Attorney General’s Office from representing the
defendants. Because the motion was dated in February 2010, but not filed until February 2011,
the court denied it as moot.
The Motion for Modification of Scheduling Order, [Doc. No. 61] is dated December 6,
2010, and seeks a court order to extend the deadline for completing discovery to June 30, 2011
and the deadline for filing motions for summary judgment until July 31, 2011. Thus, the
plaintiff is mistaken as to the content of the motion for modification ruled on by the court on
May 18, 2011. The motion for reconsideration is granted. After careful review, the court
concludes there are no errors of fact in the court’s ruling granting the motion for extension of the
4

court’s scheduling order deadlines. Thus, the relief requested is denied and the ruling is
affirmed.
For the reasons set forth above, the motion for clarification is granted as to the portion
of the May 18, 2011 Ruling denying the motion to withdraw. The motion for reconsideration is
granted. After careful reconsideration, the relief requested is denied and the Ruling on Pending
Motions [Doc. No. 91] is affirmed. The motions for an expedited and favorable ruling on the
motions for clarification and reconsideration are denied.
II.

Motion for Extension of Time [Doc. No. 93]
The plaintiff seeks an extension of time to file a reply to the defendants’ objection to

his October 25, 2010 Request for Production of Documents. Discovery requests and responses to
those requests are not to be filed with the court and the defendants have not filed their objection
with the court. See Rule 5(f), D. Conn. L. Civ. R. (“depositions, notices of depositions,
interrogatories, requests for documents, requests for admissions, and answers and responses shall
not be filed with the Clerk’s Office except by order of the Court”). The plaintiff need not to seek
the court’s permission to file a reply to the defendants’ objection. Thus, the motion for extension
of time is denied as unnecessary.

Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, the Motion for Clarification [Doc. No. 92] is
GRANTED as to the portion of the May 18, 2011 Ruling [Doc. No. 91] denying the motion to
withdraw. The Motion for Reconsideration [Doc. No. 92] is GRANTED. After careful
reconsideration, the relief requested is DENIED and the Ruling on Pending Motions [Doc. No.
91] is AFFIRMED. The Motions for an Expedited and Favorable Ruling [Docs. Nos. 98, 99]

5

on the motions for clarification and reconsideration are DENIED. The plaintiff’s Motion for
Extension of Time [Doc. No. 93] to file a reply to defendants’ objection to his discovery request
is DENIED as unnecessary.

The Clerk is directed to send the plaintiff a copy of this order and

copies of motions [Doc. Nos. 61 and 80].
SO ORDERED this 12th day of September, 2011, at New Haven, Connecticut.
/s/ Charles S. Haight, Jr.
Charles S. Haight, Jr.
Senior United States District Judge

6