Samuel et al v. Hartford et al
ORDER denying 31 Motion for Sanctions. See attached Ruling and Order. Signed by Judge Thomas P. Smith on April 19, 2011. (Keefe, B.)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
AUGUSTUS SAMUEL, et al.,
CITY OF HARTFORD, et al.,
RULING AND ORDER
The plaintiff moves for sanctions against the defendants for
pursuant to Rule 26, Fed. R. Civ. P.
The defendants object on the
ground that Rule 26 does not apply in pro se prisoner cases.
Rule 26(a)(1)(B)(iv) provides that cases filed without an
attorney by a person in the custody of a state are exempt from the
initial disclosure requirements.
The plaintiff is not represented
and is in the custody of the State of Connecticut.
Thus, the Rule
26 initial disclosure requirements do not apply in this case.
Plaintiff’s motion [doc. #31] for sanctions for failure to comply
with those requirements is DENIED.
extended until May 21, 2011.
The defendants are directed to
consider the discovery request attached to the plaintiff’s request
for a Rule 26(f) conference, as a request for production of
documents served in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and to respond to the request.
SO ORDERED at Hartford, Connecticut this 18th day of April
/s/ Thomas P. Smith
Thomas P. Smith
United States Magistrate 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?