Samuel et al v. Hartford et al

Filing 58

ORDER denying 52 Motion for Reconsideration. SEE ATTACHED. Signed by Judge Thomas P. Smith on May 7, 2012. (Gentile, N.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

AUGUSTUS SAMUEL,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF HARTFORD, et al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CASE NO. 3:10-cv-635 (WWE)

RULING AND ORDER
In this action, the plaintiff brings four claims: (1) the
defendants used excessive force against him when executing an
arrest warrant; (2) the defendants were deliberately indifferent in
preparing the incident report of the events resulting from service
of the arrest warrant, failing to check on his criminal history
before ordering the arrest warrant executed by the Emergency
Response Team, and failing to obtain a search warrant for guns or
drugs; (3) harassment; and (4) civil rights violations including
the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and
seizure, false imprisonment, and privacy.

The plaintiff has filed

a motion for reconsideration which the court construes as a motion
to compel production of items of discovery 8-18 and 32-37.

In

response, the defendants state that they have provided responses to
requests 8-18 and object to items 32-37.

For the reasons that

follow, the motion to compel is denied.
Rule 37, D. Conn. L. Civ. R., sets forth the requirements for
filing a motion to compel, most importantly requiring the parties

to make a good faith effort to resolve the matter before seeking
court involvement.

See Hanton v. Price, No. 3:04cv473(CFD), 2006

WL 581204, at *1 (D. Conn. Mar. 8, 2006).

Although the plaintiff

has not complied with all of the requirements, the defendants have
addressed the merit of these requests and the court will do so as
well.
Items 32 & 33: The plaintiff seeks a copy of a videotaped
interview of defendant Roberts that was televised on March 8, 2008,
during which
offender.

he

identified

the

plaintiff

as

a

convicted sex

The plaintiff also seeks a copy of a photo frame used in

that interview showing four sex offenders. The plaintiff’s picture
was included in the photo frame.
Item 34:

The plaintiff seeks copies of all correspondence

between defendant Roberts and himself after the interview was
recorded but before it aired. He states that correspondence, dated
before his arrest, will show that defendant Roberts knew that he
was not a convicted sex offender.

The plaintiff states that his

copies of the correspondence were destroyed during the January 31,
2008 search or while he was incarcerated.
Item 35:

The plaintiff seeks copies of all correspondence

between defendant Roberts and Hartford Mayor Eddie Perez regarding
the plaintiff.

He contends that this correspondence will provide

the motive for the actions of all defendants set forth in the
complaint.

2

Item

36:

The

plaintiff

also

seeks

copies

of

all

correspondence between defendant Roberts and Deputy Chief Dryfe.
The plaintiff contends that this correspondence will show that
Deputy Chief Dryfe provided defendant Roberts false information
that the plaintiff was a convicted sex offender.
Item 37:

Finally, the plaintiff seeks all correspondence

between defendant Roberts and the Hartford Tax Collector regarding
the plaintiff.

The plaintiff states that this correspondence will

show that the tax collector had the police arrest the plaintiff in
2006 on a charge of larceny for failure to pay his taxes a second
time after the tax collector refused his initial check.

The

plaintiff states that the case was dismissed and this resulted in
his January 2008 arrest as harassment by the mayor, tax collector
and defendant Roberts.
The defendants argue that these items are irrelevant to the
plaintiff’s

arrest

and

convictions

discovery of admissible evidence.

and

will

not lead

to

the

This action concerns the events

of January 31, 2008, when the defendants executed an arrest warrant
for the plaintiff on charges of sexual assault and risk of injury
to a minor. The plaintiff alleges that the warrant should not have
been executed by an Emergency Response Team, that the officers used
excessive force against him and that the search exceeded the bounds
of a search incident to arrest. He also challenges the accuracy of
the incident report describing the execution of the warrant and the

3

validity of the warrant itself.

As a result of his arrest on

January 31, 2008, the plaintiff entered guilty pleas to one count
of risk of injury to a minor, Case No. H14H-CR-08-0618200-S, and
two counts of criminal possession of a firearm, Case No. H14H-CR08-0618199-S.

He was sentenced to terms of imprisonment of ten

years execution suspended after five years followed by five years
probation on the first charge and terms of imprisonment of five
years on each firearms charge.

The plaintiff currently is serving

the probationary term.
The plaintiff argues that defendant Roberts knew that he was
not a registered sex offender at the time of the January 31, 2008
arrest.

Much of the information the plaintiff seeks is related to

that contention.

However, the plaintiff also alleges that the

arrest warrant was based on a complaint from the Department of
Children and Families.

The court cannot discern how defendant

Roberts’ knowledge would impact the issuance of an arrest warrant
based on a complaint from another state agency.

Accordingly, the

motion to compel is denied as to the items 32, 33, 34 and 36.
The plaintiff argues that the information in items 35 and 37
will demonstrate a motive for his arrest, namely a wish by the
mayor and tax collector to see the plaintiff arrested and punished
for prevailing on a larceny charge arising from a 2006 tax dispute.
The defendants contend that the plaintiff’s arrest was based on the
arrest warrant.

If the plaintiff is attempting to challenge the

4

validity of his arrest or convictions, the proper method would have
been

to

challenge

the

warrant

and

search

in

the

criminal

proceedings or through a petition for writ of habeas corpus.

See

Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 78 (2005) (person in state
custody cannot challenge his conviction in a civil rights action).
The court agrees with the defendants that the documents requested
in these items are not related to the incident underlying this
action and do not appear to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence.
In conclusion, the plaintiff’s motion [Doc. #52] is DENIED.
This case has been pending for two years and all of the
deadlines in the scheduling order have long passed.

The parties

are afforded thirty (30) days to file any motions for summary
judgment.

If no motions are filed, the case will be set down for

trial.
SO ORDERED.
Dated at Hartford, Connecticut: May 7, 2012.

/s/ Thomas P. Smith
Thomas P. Smith
United States Magistrate Judge

5