Leniart v. Murphy et al

Filing 59

RULING denying 36 Motion for Hearing; denying 38 Motion for Preliminary Injunction; denying 38 Motion for Order to Show Cause; denying as moot 39 Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Complaint; denying as untimely filed 53 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 11/9/2012. (Oliver, T.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

GEORGE M. LENIART,
Plaintiff,
v.
WARDEN PETER MURPHY, et al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:

PRISONER
CASE NO. 3:11-cv-1635 (SRU)

RULING ON PENDING MOTIONS
This ruling considers four motions filed by plaintiff George Leniart: Motion for Waiver
of Security and Emergency Hearing [Doc. #36], Motion for Temporary Injunction [Doc. #38],
Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Complaint [Doc. #39], and Motion for Reconsideration
[Doc. #53].
I

Motions for Waiver of Security and Emergency Hearing and for Temporary Injunction
Leniart seeks injunctive relief regarding medical care and an immediate hearing on that

request. A preliminary injunction is designed “‘to preserve the status quo and prevent irreparable
harm until the court has an opportunity to rule on the lawsuit’s merits.’” Lebron v. Armstrong,
289 F. Supp. 2d 56, 60 (D. Conn. 2003) (quoting Devose v. Herrington, 42 F.3d 470, 471 (8th
Cir. 1994) (per curiam)). To prevail on his motion, Leniart must establish a relationship between
the injury claimed in his motion and the actions giving rise to his complaint. The operative
amended complaint includes four counts, each describing discrete incidents of various defendants
reading and confiscating documents from his legal materials. The incidents occurred between
October 20, 2008, and March 31, 2010. Leiniart’s current medical needs are unrelated to
whether various defendants read or confiscated documents from his legal papers.

In addition, before the court can validly enter an injunction against a person, the court
must have in personam jurisdiction over him. See Doctor’s Assocs., Inc. v. Reinert & Duree,
P.C., 191 F.3d 297, 302 (2d Cir. 1999). No medical care providers are named as defendants in
the operative complaint. Leniart’s motion for temporary injunction and his request for
immediate hearing on the motion are denied.
Leniart also request a waiver of the requirement that he post security. Leniart was granted
leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this case. Thus, he is not required to post security. This
request is denied as moot.
II.

Motion for Reconsideration
Leniart seeks reconsideration of the court’s July 9, 2012 ruling denying his motion for

court assistance ascertaining names of John Doe defendants. The time for filing a motion for
reconsideration is fourteen days. D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 7(c)1. Leniart’s motion is dated October
1, 2012, long after the time for filing a motion for reconsideration expired. The motion is denied
as untimely filed.
III.

Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Complaint
Leniart has filed two motions seeking leave to file supplemental complaints. The court

has granted his most recent motion. Accordingly, the earlier motion [Doc. #39] is denied as
moot.
IV.

Conclusion
Leniart’s motions for temporary injunction [Doc. #38], waiver of security and emergency

hearing [Doc. #36], and leave to file a supplemental complaint [Doc. #39] are DENIED.
Leniart’s motion for reconsideration [Doc. #53] is DENIED as untimely filed.

2

SO ORDERED this 9th day of November 2012, at Bridgeport, Connecticut.

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

3