Anderson v. Arnone et al
ORDER denying 18 Motion to Compel; denying 19 Motion for Order. See attached Ruling. Signed by Judge Thomas P. Smith on March 12, 2014. (Pylman, J.)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
Oscar L. Anderson,
Leo C. Arnone, et al.,
CASE NO. 3:13-cv-0425(AVC)
RULING ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO COMPEL [Doc. #18]
AND FOR MISCELLANEOUS RELIEF [Doc. #19]
The plaintiff, currently incarcerated, has filed motions to
compel and for miscellaneous relief.
For the reasons that follow,
the plaintiff’s motions are denied.
interrogatories and production of documents. Motions to compel are
governed by Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and
District of Connecticut Local Civil Rule 37.
The local rule
requires that, before filing a motion to compel, the moving party
must confer with opposing counsel in a good faith effort to resolve
The purpose of this rule is to encourage the parties
to resolve discovery disputes without court intervention.
Hanton v. Price, No. 3:04cv473(CFD), 2006 WL 581204, at *1 (D.
Conn. Mar. 8, 2006).
If discussions are not successful, the party
moving to compel must submit an affidavit certifying the attempted
resolution and specifying which issues were resolved and which
remain. In addition, Local Rule 37(b)1 requires that copies of the
discovery requests must be included as exhibits.
The plaintiff has not complied with any of these requirements.
He has provided a copy of his interrogatories but not the request
for production of documents.
He has not submitted an affidavit or
memorandum and fails to indicate that he made any effort to confer
with counsel regarding the defendants’ objections to his requests.
Accordingly, the motion to compel is denied.
The plaintiff also seeks an order that he not be transferred
facility, that his cell not be searched and that he not be
subjected to any harassment. The plaintiff indicates that he would
consider any such actions retaliatory.
He also seeks access to
inmates at other correctional facilities should it become necessary
during this case.
The defendants object on the ground that the
plaintiff fails to cite any legal authority supporting his requests
and has demonstrated no need to contact other inmates.
confined in any particular correctional facility or in any area
within a correctional facility.
See Jarecke v. Hensley, 552 F.
Supp. 2d 261, 265 (D. Conn. 2008) (citations omitted).
plaintiff’s request for an order preventing his transfer is denied.
In addition, the courts have recognized that cell searches are an
important tool in prison administration. See Hudson v. Palmer, 468
U.S. 517, 527 (1984) (holding that prison officials required
unfettered access to prisoner cells and broad discretion over when
to search cells to deter possession of contraband and ensure
Thus, the request to prohibit searches of
the plaintiff’s cell during the pendency of this case is denied.
If the plaintiff considers any of the searches or any possible
transfers retaliatory, he may file a lawsuit for retaliation.
Finally, the plaintiff seeks access to unidentified inmates in
other correctional facilities if needed.
Until the plaintiff can
identify the inmates and explain why access is required, the court
cannot properly evaluate the request.
The request is denied as
The plaintiff’s motions to compel [Doc. #18] and for order
[Doc. #19] are DENIED.
So ordered at Hartford, Connecticut, this
day of March
/s/ Thomas P. Smith
Thomas P. Smith
United States Magistrate 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?