Reynolds v. Murphy et al

Filing 28

ORDER denying 24 Motion to Amend/Correct; denying 25 Motion for Reconsideration. The plaintiff shall file his response to the Motion to Dismiss 21 within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this order. If no objection to the motion to dismiss is filed within that time, this case will be dismissed without further notice to the plaintiff.Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 2/9/2015. (Pollack, R.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

RICHARD REYNOLDS
v.
BRIAN K. MURPHY, ET AL.

:
:
:
:
:
:

Case No.

3:13-cv-316(SRU)

RULING AND ORDER
On November 19, 2103, the Court dismissed the claims for money damages against all
defendants in their official capacities pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(2) and the claims under
the Geneva Convention, the Fifth Amendment, the Eighth Amendment, the Equal Protection
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
relating to confiscation of personal property, loss of job and the issuance and disposition of a
disciplinary report and the First Amendment relating to alleged retaliatory conduct against all
defendants in their individual and official capacities pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). The
Court concluded that the claims relating to the defendants’ improper confiscation of the
plaintiff’s magazines in violation of the First Amendment and his indefinite placement on
restraint status in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment would proceed against all defendants
in their individual and official capacities. See Initial Review Or., Doc. No. 9.
Pending before the Court is the plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the Initial
Review Order dismissing the Complaint in part and his motion for leave to amend the
complaint. For the reasons set forth below, the motions for reconsideration and for leave to
amend are denied.

I.

Motion for Reconsideration [Doc. No. 25]
The plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the portion of the Initial Review Order that

dismissed the claim that defendants denied him access to a job in prison in violation of the
Fourteenth Amendment. The standard for granting motions for reconsideration is strict; motions
for reconsideration “will generally be denied unless the moving party can point to controlling
decisions or data that the court overlooked—matters, in other words, that might reasonably be
expected to alter the conclusion reached by the court.” Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d
255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995). Motions for reconsideration will not be granted where the party merely
seeks to relitigate an issue that has already been decided, id., but may be granted where there is a
need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice. Virgin Atl. Airways, Ltd. v. Nat’l
Mediation Bd., 956 F.2d 1245, 1255 (2d Cir. 1992) (citing 18 Charles A. Wright, Arthur R.
Miller & Edward H. Cooper, Federal Practice & Procedure § 4478). Because the plaintiff has
not pointed to previously overlooked cases or facts that might be expected to alter the
conclusions reached by the court, the motion does not meet the high standard for motions for
reconsideration, and it is denied.
II.

Motion for Leave to Amend [Doc. No. 24]
The plaintiff seeks leave to file an amended complaint to add new claims about

conditions of confinement on death row. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that a
plaintiff may amend his complaint once as of right “within 21 days after serving [the complaint]
or . . . [within] 21 days after service of a” pleading responsive to the complaint “or 21 days after
service of a motion” to dismiss, for more definite statement or to strike, whichever is earlier.”
Rule 15(a)(1), Fed. R. Civ. P.
The docket reflects that all defendants had been served as of December 11, 2013.

Because the plaintiff’s motion seeking to file an amended complaint to add new claims was filed
more than twenty-one days after service of the Complaint, the plaintiff may not amend as of
right. After the time to amend as of right has passed, “[t]he court should freely” grant leave to
amend “when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).
The plaintiff states that he will remove the remaining claims in the Complaint and then
file an amended complaint that includes all conditions of confinement on Death Row that are
atypical and significant. Under the analysis set forth in Sandin v. Connor, 515 U.S. 472 (1995),
he would then compare the conditions on death row to the conditions in general population and
also compare the conditions on death row before the assault on defendant Cahill by Inmate
Daniel Webb on March 29, 2010, and the conditions after the assault. He claims that all of these
new allegations would state a substantive Eighth Amendment claim. The Supreme Court in
Sandin addressed whether a liberty interest existed that necessitated procedural due process
under the Fourteenth Amendment before an inmate could be placed in segregated confinement
for thirty days as punishment for a disciplinary infraction. The claims that the plaintiff seeks to
add or substitute in an amended complaint are conditions of confinement claims under the Eighth
Amendment. The addition of new claims and possibly new defendants would delay this case
and prejudice the existing defendants. See Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962) (the court
considers such factors as undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive, undue prejudice and futility of
the amendment, in determining whether to grant leave to amend).
The Court notes that the plaintiff has asserted multiple death row conditions of
confinement claims in another action filed in this Court, Reynolds v. Arnone, Case No.
3:13cv1465(SRU). The Court concludes that justice does not require the plaintiff to be permitted
to file an amended complaint to add new conditions of confinement claims. The motion for

leave to amend is denied.
Conclusion
The Motion for Reconsideration [Doc. No. 25] is DENIED. The Motion for Leave to
Amend the Complaint [Doc. No. 24] is DENIED.
The plaintiff shall file his response to the Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 21] within
THIRTY DAYS of the date of this order. If no objection to the motion to dismiss is filed
within that time, this case will be dismissed without further notice to the plaintiff.
SO ORDERED this 9th day of February 2015, at Bridgeport, Connecticut.
/s/ STEFAN R. UNDERHILL
Stefan R. Underhill
United States District Judge