Alston v. Lantz
ORDER (see attached) - granting 28 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration. Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration is GRANTED to the extent that Plaintiff may move to file an amended complaint if and when he has obtained sufficient service information for defendants C.O. Santiago, or C.T.O. Santiago, C.O. Pagan, and John Doe ##9-12. Signed by Judge Charles S. Haight, Jr. on 11/7/13. (Hornstein, A)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
THERESA LANTZ, et al.,
Plaintiff Ira Alston (hereafter "Plaintiff"), currently incarcerated at the Northern
Correctional Institution in Somers, Connecticut, has filed an Amended Complaint pro se under
42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking damages and injunctive relief. [Doc. 12].
On July 10, 2013, the Court issued an Order in which it afforded Plaintiff a final
opportunity to provide service names and addresses for several defendants in this action. See
[Doc. 27]. As the Court stated, in "the Court's May 15, 2013 Initial Review Order, the Court
[had] advised Plaintiff that, as it had previously informed him, 'service cannot be effected on
Defendants John Doe ##9-12 without their full names and current work addresses.'" Id. The
Court further stated that in "a subsequent Order dated June 5, 2013, this Court noted that while
the Clerk had attempted to obtain service addresses for the Defendants listed by Plaintiff in this
action as 'C.O. Santiago' and 'C.O. Pagan,' the Department of Correction Office of Legal Affairs
had informed the Court that it currently employs six individuals with the last name 'Santiago' and
two individuals with the last name 'Pagan.'" Id. The Court accordingly "directed Plaintiff to
ascertain the full names of the two Defendants ... listed at page 3 of his Amended Complaint as
'C.O. Santiago' and 'C.O. Pagan,' and to file a notice with the Court containing these Defendants'
full names." Id. While the Court noted that Plaintiff had submitted some information with
respect to the defendant he had identified in his Amended Complaint as 'C.O. Santiago,'
specifically this individual's place of work, the Court stated that "[t]his information ... [was] not
sufficient to identify Defendant C.O. Santiago." Id. The Court concluded this July 10, 2013
Order by setting a final deadline by which Plaintiff must provide "information sufficient for
identification of Defendants John Doe ##9-12 and Defendants 'C.O. Santiago' and 'C.O. Pagan'"
– Wednesday, July 24, 2013. Id. The Court specified that if Plaintiff did not "provide such
information by Wednesday, July 24, 2013, all claims against any such Defendants for whom such
information was not submitted [would] be dismissed without further notice." Id.1
On July 22, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration, [Doc. 28], with respect to
the aforementioned July 10, 2013 Court Order, [Doc. 27], in which Plaintiff "respectfully
request[ed] that this Court reconsider" its prior Orders and "permit Plaintiff sixty (60) days after
the filing of any appearance on behalf of the Defendants for the purpose of discovering the full
names and addresses of C.O., not 'C.T.O. Santiago,' C.O. Pagan[,] and John Doe ##9-12." [Doc.
28] at 3-4. Plaintiff explained that he "is pro se, and incarcerated," and thus the "full names of the
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) provides that service must be effected within 120 days after a
complaint is filed in an action. However, if a plaintiff is able to show "good cause for the failure,
the court must extend the time for service for an appropriate period." Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).
Plaintiff commenced this action when he filed a Complaint on January 31, 2012. Although the
Court is required to effect service for Plaintiff, as he is proceeding in forma pauperis in this
action, it is Plaintiff who is responsible for providing service information to the Court. The
Clerk's Office attempted to facilitate service by verifying the Plaintiff's identifying information
with the Department of Correction; however, these attempts were unsuccessful as to the identities
and full names of the defendants referred to as "C.O. Santiago" or "C.T.O. Santiago," and "C.O.
Defendants" is not information to which Plaintiff is privileged. Id. at 2. Thus, Plaintiff
contended, without "[t]he opportunity for discovery it is impossible ... to obtain the information
necessary to identify those defendants." Id. at 3.
Further, specifically with respect to the Defendant Plaintiff had most recently identified
as "C.T.O. Santiago," Plaintiff wrote that although he had "provided this Court with the current
work address of Defendant C.O. Santiago whom is now C.T.O. Santiago assigned to the B-2
housing unit at Walker C.I. 1153 East Street South Suffield CT 06080 ... [t]he Court ha[d]
informed ... Plaintiff that this information [was] insufficient to identify Defendant C.O.
Santiago." Id. at 2. Plaintiff averred that "there is only one B-2 housing unit at Walker
[Correctional Institute]," and, as well, only "one C.T.O. named Santiago assigned/posted within
that unit." Id. (emphasis in original).
Plaintiff has stated that he cannot ascertain the full names or identities of all
aforementioned defendants without engaging in discovery. He is free to do exactly that – i.e., to
attempt to ascertain the full names and identities of all aforementioned defendants – over the
course of discovery as this litigation proceeds. If and when Plaintiff is successful in this respect,
he may file a motion for leave to amend his Complaint, including claims against all defendants
he is at that time able to identify. Any such motion to amend shall include information
demonstrating that such claims are timely.
Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration [Doc. 28] is therefore GRANTED to the extent
that Plaintiff may move to file an amended complaint if and when he has obtained sufficient
service information for defendants C.O. Santiago, or C.T.O. Santiago, C.O. Pagan, and John Doe
The foregoing is SO ORDERED.
Dated: New Haven, Connecticut
November 7, 2013
/s/Charles S. Haight, Jr.
Charles S. Haight, Jr.
Senior United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?