Arnold v. Doe et al

Filing 43

ORDER denying as moot 27 Motion for Order and to Transfer to Another District; denying as moot 28 Motion for Permanent Injunction; denying 36 Motion for Reconsideration; denying as moot 37 Motion for Order; and granting 19 Motion to Amend/Correct. See attached memorandum of decision. Signed by Judge Vanessa L. Bryant on February 25, 2013. (Butler, Ayanna)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
WILLIAM ARNOLD

v.
JOHN DOE, ET AL.

:
:
:
:
:
:

Case No. 3:11-cv-1342 (VLB)
February 25, 2013

RULING ON MOTIONS FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, RECONSIDERATION
AND TO AMEND/CORRECT COMPLAINT
Pending before the court are three motions for injunctive relief, a motion to
correct the court’s Initial Review Order and a motion for reconsideration filed by the
plaintiff. For the reasons set forth below, the motions for injunctive relief and for
reconsideration are DENIED and the motion to correct is GRANTED.

I.

Motion to Correct [Doc. No. 19]
The plaintiff claims that he intended to include Nursing Supervisor Rebecca,

Health Services Administrator Rikel Lightner and Correctional Officer Deam in the
Amended Complaint and that he had listed these three individuals as defendants on
the back side of the first page of the Amended Complaint. The plaintiff has
submitted a copy of the front of page one of an Amended Complaint as well as the
back of page one which lists Nursing Supervisor Rebecca, Health Services
Administrator Rikel Lightner and Correctional Officer Deam as defendants.
The Amended Complaint, [Doc. No. 9], that is on file with the court and that
was scanned in by a docket clerk does not include the page listing these three
individuals as defendants. At this point, there is no way to verify whether there

1

were individuals listed on the back side of page one of the Amended Complaint. It
is possible, however, that these Nursing Supervisor Rebecca, Health Services
Administrator Lightner and Correctional Officer Deam were listed on the back side
of the first page of the Amended Complaint, but the docket clerk did not notice the
names and did not scan the page. The court notes that these individuals are
mentioned in the body of the Amended Complaint.
In light of the information above, it is apparent that the plaintiff intended to
name Nursing Supervisor Rebecca, Health Services Administrator Rikel Lightner
and Correctional Officer Deam as defendants in the Amended Complaint. Thus, the
court will construe the plaintiff’s motion as a motion for leave to file a second
amended complaint to add these three individuals as defendants pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15. The motion is GRANTED.

II.

Motions for Injunctive Relief [Docs. Nos. 27, 28, 37]
In the first motion for injunctive relief [Doc. 27], the plaintiff states that he

refused to permit Nurse Caroline to inject him with Insulin on September 27, 2012
because of the incident that occurred on September 22, 2012. Correctional officials
sent him to administrative detention for making threats. The plaintiff seeks to be
transferred to another prison facility.
In the second motion for injunctive relief [Doc. 28], the plaintiff claims that on
September 22, 2012, Nurse Caroline tried to give him a shot of insulin but the needle
went through the muscle of his arm and into the bone causing him extreme pain. He
seeks a court order that prohibits defendant Nurse Caroline from administering his
2

insulin injections, writing notes in his medical record or otherwise treating or
speaking to him.
In the third motion for injunctive relief dated October 24, 2012 [Doc. 37],
and signed on November 2, 2012, the plaintiff states that correctional officials
have refused to permit him to file assault charges against Nurse Caroline with the
Connecticut State Police. He claims prison officials found him guilty of making
threats and he lost fifteen days of good time, thirty days of recreation and thirty
days of use of the commissary. He is now housed in a restrictive housing unit.
He seeks an order that Nurse Caroline not have any contact with him and that he
be transferred to another prison facility.
On November 21, 2012, the defendants filed a response to the plaintiff’s
motions for injunctive relief. [Doc. 33]. The defendants have provided evidence
that the plaintiff’s medical records reflect that since September 22, 2012, Nurse
Caroline has administered three shots of Insulin to the plaintiff without incident.
Lightner Aff., Attachments A&B, Doc. 33. In addition, the plaintiff met with
Nursing Supervisor Erin Dolan and Health Services Administrator Rikel Lightner
on or about November 20, 2012 regarding the incident that occurred on
September 22, 2012. See id. at Attachment B. During that meeting, the plaintiff
agreed that Nurse Caroline may continue to administer insulin injections. Id..
Furthermore, the plaintiff concedes in his third motion for injunctive relief that
Nurse Caroline has administered shots of Insulin on five different occasions
since September 22, 2012, without incident. See Mot. Order at 3, [Doc. No. 37].
The plaintiff has not demonstrated that he is in danger of imminent harm if
3

the court were not to transfer him to a different prison facility or to order Nurse
Caroline not to treat or speak to him. In view of the fact that Nurse Caroline has
treated the plaintiff on at least five occasions since mid-September 2012 and has
administered the Insulin injections in a proper manner according to the plaintiff,
the court concludes the injunctive relief sought by the plaintiff is no longer
necessary. 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”). Accordingly, the motions seeking injunctive relief
are DENIED as moot.

III.

Motion for Reconsideration [Doc. No. 36]
The plaintiff asks the court to reconsider sealing officers’ records. He

refers to a response to a motion for summary judgment. The court has not
issued an order regarding sealing records and no motion for summary judgment
has been filed in this case. Accordingly, the motion for reconsideration is
DENIED.

IV.

Jane and John Doe Defendants
The plaintiff named two John Doe Correctional Officers and one Jane Doe

Correctional Officer as defendants in the Amended Complaint. On July 20, 2012,
the court notified the plaintiff that the United States Marshal could not serve the
Amended Complaint on the Doe officers until the plaintiff identified them by
name. The court permitted the plaintiff ninety days to conduct discovery to
4

identify the Doe officers. The court informed the plaintiff that if he failed to notify
the court of the names of the Doe officers within ninety days, the claims against
the Doe officers would be dismissed pursuant to Rule 4(m), Fed. R. Civ. P. The
ninety day time period has elapsed and the plaintiff has not identified the names
of the Doe officers. Accordingly, the claims against both John Doe Correctional
Officers and Jane Doe Correctional Officer are DISMISSED pursuant to Rule 4(m),
Fed. R. Civ. P.

Conclusion
The claims against both John Doe Correctional Officers and the Jane Doe
Correctional Officer are DISMISSED pursuant to Rule 4(m), Fed. R. Civ. P. The
Motions for Injunctive Relief [Docs. Nos. 27, 28, 37] are DENIED as moot. The
Motion for Reconsideration [Doc. No. 36] regarding sealing records is DENIED.
The Motion to Correct [Doc. No. 19], which the court has construed as a motion
for leave to file a second amended complaint to add Nursing Supervisor Rebecca,
Health Services Administrator Rikel Lightner and Correctional Officer Deam as
defendants is GRANTED.
The plaintiff is directed to file a Second Amended Complaint that lists all
defendants, including defendants Rebecca, Lightner and Deam, in the caption on
the first page. Thus, the caption should include the following defendants:
Correctional Officers Santiago, Scott, Bracket, Savada, Pertilla, Anderson, Maloid,
Guica, Cay, Gazalez, Curtis and Deam, Nurses Caroline, Joy and Oliver, Nursing
Supervisor Rebecca, Unit Manager Manley and Health Services Administrator
5

Rikel Lightner. The body of the Second Amended Complaint should include the
allegations against all defendants listed in the caption. The Second Amended
Complaint must be filed within (30) thirty days of the date of this order. If the
plaintiff fails to file the Second Amended Complaint, the case will proceed only as to
defendants Correctional Officers Santiago, Scott, Bracket, Savada, Pertilla,
Anderson, Maloid, Guica, Cay, Gazalez and Curtis, Nurses Caroline, Joy and Oliver
and Unit Manager Manley.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
___________/s/__________
Vanessa L. Bryant
United States District Judge
Dated at Hartford, Connecticut: February 25, 2013.

6