Daniels v. Murphy et al

Filing 18

ORDER denying as moot 5 Motion for TRO. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 10/21/11. (Hungerford, A.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

LADEAN DANIELS
v.

CASE NO.

3:11CV286(SRU)

BRIAN K. MURPHY, ET AL.

RULING ON MOTION SEEKING INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Pending before the court is the plaintiff’s motion seeking injunctive relief in
connection with his conditions of confinement at Northern Correctional Institution (“Northern”).
The sole claim in the complaint, however, pertains to his inability to exercise since June 2010
because of a requirement that he be handcuffed behind his back during recreation. In the present
motion, the plaintiff claims that prison officials at Northern, including the defendants, have
denied him access to his law books, copies of his legal work, cleaning solution to sanitize his cell
and medical care and have discarded his grievances. In addition, the defendants have threatened
to issue him disciplinary reports to keep him at Northern and have placed barking dogs in his
housing unit to prevent him from sleeping and going to recreation.
Department of Correction records reflect that the plaintiff has been transferred to
MacDougall Correctional Institution and the plaintiff has updated the court file to reflect that he
is now confined at MacDougall.1 Thus, the court concludes the plaintiff’s requests for injunctive

The court takes judicial notice of the records of the Connecticut Department of
Correction on their website. See Browdy v. Karpe, No. 3:00cv1866 (CFD), 2004 WL 2203464,
at *2 n.3 (D. Conn. Sept. 20, 2004) (taking judicial notice of correctional records of admission
and discharge); Ligon v. Doherty, 208 F. Supp. 2d 384, 386 (E.D.N.Y. 2002) (taking judicial
notice of records posted on New York Correctional Services website). Records show that
Daniels is currently incarcerated at MacDougall Correctional Institution. See
1

relief relating to conditions of confinement at Northern is now moot. See Martin-Trigona v.
Shiff, 702 F.2d 380, 386 (2d Cir. 1983) (“The hallmark of a moot case or controversy is that the
relief sought can no longer be given or is no longer needed.”). The Motion for Injunctive Relief
[Doc. No. 5] is DENIED as moot.
SO ORDERED this 21st day of October 2011, at Bridgeport, Connecticut.

/s/ Stefan R. Underhill
Stefan R. Underhill
United States District Judge

http://ctinmateinfo.state.ct.us/detailsupv.asp?id_inmt_num=196157 (Last Visited Oct. 21, 2011).
2