Morgan v. Bernard

Filing 4

PRISCS-INITIAL REVIEW ORDER, ( Discovery due by 2/13/2013, Dispositive Motions due by 3/13/2013), Answer deadline updated for Ray Bernard to 9/20/2012.. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 7/13/2012. (Payton, R.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

LLOYD GEORGE MORGAN, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
RAY BERNARD,
Defendant.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:

PRISONER
CASE NO. 3:12-cv-983 (SRU)

INITIAL REVIEW ORDER
The plaintiff, currently incarcerated at the Garner Correctional Institution in Newtown,
Connecticut, has filed a complaint pro se under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) seeking damages from
the defendant in his individual capacity.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (2000), the court must review prisoner civil complaints and
dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, that fails to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted, or that seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from
such relief. Id. In reviewing a pro se complaint, the court must assume the truth of the
allegations, and interpret them liberally to “raise the strongest arguments [they] suggest[].”
Abbas v. Dixon, 480 F.3d 636, 639 (2d Cir. 2007). Although detailed allegations are not
required, the complaint must include sufficient facts to afford the defendants fair notice of the
claims and the grounds upon which they are based and to demonstrate a right to relief. Bell
Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-56 (2007). Conclusory allegations are not sufficient.
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). The plaintiff must plead “enough
facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. But “‘[a]
document filed pro se is to be liberally construed and a pro se complaint, however inartfully

pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’”
Boykin v. KeyCorp, 521 F.3d 202, 214 (2d Cir. 2008) (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89,
94 (2007)).
Morgan alleges that defendant Bernard issued him a false disciplinary report in retaliation
for Morgan complaining to superiors about Bernard’s conduct.1 The court concludes, at this
time, that the complaint should be served on the defendant.
ORDERS
In accordance with the foregoing analysis, the court enters the following orders:
(1)

The Pro Se Prisoner Litigation Office shall verify the current work address for

defendant Bernard with the Department of Correction Office of Legal Affairs and mail a waiver
of service of process request packet to him at the confirmed address within fourteen (14) days of
this Order. The Pro Se Prisoner Litigation Office shall report to the court on the status of that
waiver request on the thirty-fifth (35) day after mailing. If the defendant fails to return the
waiver request, the Pro Se Prisoner Litigation Office shall make arrangements for in-person
service by the U.S. Marshals Service on the defendant in his individual capacity and the
defendant shall be required to pay the costs of such service in accordance with Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 4(d).
(2)

The Pro Se Prisoner Litigation Office shall send written notice to the plaintiff of

the status of this action, along with a copy of this Order.

1

The court notes that Morgan falsely states in his complaint that no prior lawsuit or appeal
was dismissed as frivolous or malicious or for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted. See Doc. #1 at 4. In fact, an appeal, Morgan v. Armstrong, No. 06-2198-pr, was
dismissed as frivolous in 2006.
2

(3)

The Pro Se Prisoner Litigation Office shall send a courtesy copy of the

Complaint and this Ruling and Order to the Connecticut Attorney General and the Department of
Correction Office of Legal Affairs.
(4)

The defendant shall file his response to the complaint, either an answer or

motion to dismiss, within seventy (70) days from the date of this order. If he chooses to file an
answer, he shall admit or deny the allegations and respond to the cognizable claims recited
above. He also may include any and all additional defenses permitted by the Federal Rules.
(5)

Discovery, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 through 37, shall be

completed within seven months (210 days) from the date of this order. Discovery requests need
not be filed with the court.
(6)

All motions for summary judgment shall be filed within eight months (240 days)

from the date of this order.
(7)

Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7(a), a nonmoving party must respond to a

dispositive motion within twenty-one (21) days of the date the motion was filed. If no response
is filed, or the response is not timely, the dispositive motion can be granted absent objection.
SO ORDERED this 13th day of July 2012, at Bridgeport, Connecticut.
/s/ Stefan R. Underhill
Stefan R. Underhill
United States District Judge

3