Anderson v. Arnone et al

Filing 28

ORDER denying 25 Motion for Protective Order. See attached Ruling on Plaintiff's Motion for Protective Order. Signed by Judge Thomas P. Smith on May 6, 2014. (Pylman, J.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

OSCAR ANDERSON,
Plaintiff,

:
:
:
:
:
:
:

v.
LEO C. ARNONE, et al.,
Defendants.

CASE NO. 3:13-cv-425(AVC)

RULING ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER [Doc. #25]
The

plaintiff

seeks

a

protective

order

preventing

the

defendants from transferring him to another correctional facility
in retaliation for his filing this action.
The plaintiff’s request is not the proper use of a motion for
protective order.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) provides

that a protective order is designed to protect a party “from
annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense”
as a result of discovery requests. The motion for protective order
is denied.
Further,

the

plaintiff

previously

sought

a

court

preventing his transfer during the pendency of this case.

order
The

court denied the request and explained that the plaintiff has no
right to be housed in any particular correctional facility.

The

court indicated that if he were transferred as a retaliatory act,

the plaintiff could pursue that matter in a separate lawsuit.

See

Doc. #24.

The plaintiff has provided no evidence in support of his

request.

Absent evidence suggesting that the defendants are

planning to transfer the plaintiff in retaliation for his filing
this action, court action is not warranted.
The plaintiff’s motion for protective order [Doc. #25] is
DENIED.
So ordered at Hartford, Connecticut, this

6th

day of May

2014.
/s/ Thomas P. Smith
Thomas P. Smith
United States Magistrate Judge

2