Anderson v. Arnone et al

Filing 24

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,
Plaintiff,

:
:
:
:
:
:
:

v.
Leo C. Arnone, et al.,
Defendants.

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.
The

plaintiff

first

moves

to

compel

responses

to

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 dispute.

The purpose of this rule is to encourage the parties

to resolve discovery disputes without court intervention.

See

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
to

another

correctional

facility

or

within

the

correctional

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.
Inmates

have

no

constitutionally

protected

right

to

be

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).

The

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

2

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
sanitary conditions).

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

premature.
The plaintiff’s motions to compel [Doc. #18] and for order
[Doc. #19] are DENIED.
So ordered at Hartford, Connecticut, this

12th

day of March

2014.

/s/ Thomas P. Smith
Thomas P. Smith
United States Magistrate Judge

3