Franco v. New Haven et al
PRISCS-INITIAL REVIEW ORDER, Answer deadline updated for L. Casanova to 2/15/2013; Dean Esserman to 2/15/2013; Reddish to 2/15/2013; Zona to 2/15/2013., ( Discovery due by 7/5/2013, Dispositive Motions due by 8/5/2013). Signed by Judge Alvin W. Thompson on 12/4/2012. (Payton, R.)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
CITY OF NEW HAVEN, et al.,
Case No. 3:12-cv-1357(AWT)
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER
The plaintiff, currently incarcerated at the Cheshire
Correctional Institution in Cheshire, Connecticut, has filed an
amended complaint pursuant to the court’s October 12, 2012 order.
He names as defendants the City of New Haven, Police Chief Dean
Esserman, Lieutenant L. Casanova, Sergeant Zona and Lieutenant
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.
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.”
F.3d 636, 639 (2d Cir. 2007).
Abbas v. Dixon, 480
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.’”
KeyCorp, 521 F.3d 202, 214 (2d Cir. 2008) (quoting Erickson v.
Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007)).
The plaintiff alleges that, on the evening of August 12,
2012, defendants Casanova, Zona and Reddish used excessive force
against him, defendant Casanova by unnecessarily hitting the
front passenger side of the plaintiff’s car with his police
vehicle after a high speed chase and defendants Zona and Reddish
by assaulting him while the plaintiff was restrained.
plaintiff also alleges that the City of New Haven and Police
Chief Esserman were aware of defendant Casanova’s history of
improper behavior but failed to properly train and supervise him
and failed to establish a policy to prevent abuses of high speed
The court concludes that the amended complaint should be
served on all defendants.
The Pro Se Litigation Office shall mail a waiver of
service of process request packet including the amended complaint
to each defendant, Esserman, Casanova, Zona and Reddish, in his
individual capacity at the New Haven Police Department, One Union
Avenue, New Haven, Connecticut 06511 within five (5) business
days of this Order, and report to the court on the status of
those waiver requests on the thirty-fifth (35) day after mailing.
If any 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 and that defendant shall be
required to pay the costs of such service in accordance with
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(d).
The Pro Se Prisoner Litigation Office shall prepare
summons forms and send official capacity service packets to the
U.S. Marshal Service.
The U.S. Marshal is directed to effect
service of the amended complaint on the City of New Haven and the
other defendants in their official capacities at the Office of
the City Clerk, 165 Church Street, New Haven, Connecticut 06510,
within five (5) days from the date of this order and to file
returns of service within fifteen (15) days from the date of this
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.
Defendants shall file their response to the complaint,
either an answer or motion to dismiss, within seventy (70) days
from the date of this order.
If they choose to file an answer,
they shall admit or deny the allegations and respond to the
cognizable claims recited above.
They also may include any and
all additional defenses permitted by the Federal Rules.
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.
All motions for summary judgment shall be filed within
eight months (240 days) from the date of this order.
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
Plaintiff may not amend his complaint to include any
additional claims or defendants without first obtaining leave of
SO ORDERED this 4th day of December 2012, at Hartford,
Alvin W. Thompson
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?