Webb v. Armstrong et al

Filing 29

ORDER denying 27 MOTION for Leave to Amend Complaint; denying 15 MOTION for Reconsideration re 5 Initial Review Order; granting 14 MOTION for Extension of Time until 30 days to File Amended Complaint; granting 22 and 23 MOTIONS for Extension of Time. Signed by Judge Robert N. Chatigny on 12/17/2012. (Gillenwater, J)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
DANIEL J.A. WEBB

:

V.

:

JOHN ARMSTRONG, et al.

:

CASE NO. 3:11CV1557 (RNC)

ORDER
On August 15, 2012, the Court issued an Initial Review
Order ("IRO") (Doc. 5) dismissing claims against twenty
defendants in this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1).
The IRO permitted the case to proceed as to certain claims
against defendants Cahill, Leaks, Pagliano, Brace, Wilbur,
Germond, Fleeting, and Correctional Officer Doe arising out
of a March 29, 2010 confrontation between the plaintiff and
defendant Cahill.

The IRO notified the plaintiff that

service could not be effected on defendant Doe without that
defendant's name and address, and directed the plaintiff to
file an amended complaint within 30 days containing this
information.

The Court specifically cautioned the plaintiff

that "the amended complaint shall . . . omit all allegations
relating to the claims that have been dismissed without
prejudice by this order."
After requesting an extension of time to file an
1

amended complaint and a motion for reconsideration on
September 14, the plaintiff submitted a proposed amended
complaint on October 11.

This proposed amended complaint

asserts a new claim under the Americans with Disabilities
Act, adds three defendants against whom claims were
dismissed in the IRO, adds seven new defendants, and makes
new requests for relief.

As such, the proposed amended

complaint fails to comply with the directives of the IRO.
Treating the proposed amended complaint as a motion for
leave to amend, the motion (Doc. 27) is denied for failure
to comply with the IRO.

The plaintiff's motion for an

extension of time of 30 days to file an amended complaint
(Doc. 14) is granted, and the plaintiff shall have until
January 18, 2013, to file an amended complaint that complies
with the IRO.

To comply with the IRO, the amended complaint

must not contain claims or defendants except the claims and
defendants listed at pages 3 and 4 of the IRO.

This amended

complaint shall be the sole operative complaint going
forward in this action.

No new claims and no new defendants

will be added except pursuant to a court order granting
leave to amend.

No such motion may be filed until after the

plaintiff files an amended complaint in accordance with the

2

IRO and this order.
The defendants' motions for extension of time (Docs.
22, 23) are granted.

The plaintiff's motion for

reconsideration (Doc. 15) is denied.

The Clerk will

reinstate the defendants named in the IRO that were
terminated following submission of the proposed amended
complaint and terminate the case with respect to all
additional defendants named in the proposed amended
complaint.
So ordered this 17th day of December, 2012.

/s/ RNC
Robert N. Chatigny
United States District Judge

3