Card v. Coleman et al

Filing 26

RULING denying 15 Motion to Appoint Counsel ; denying 17 Motion to Compel; denying 20 Motion to Amend/Correct Motion to Appoint Counsel; denying 21 Motion for Leave to File an Amendment Motion to Appointment; denying 22 Motion for Leave to File an Amendment for Motion Appointment of Counsel. Signed by Judge William I. Garfinkel on 12/4/2014. (Payton, R.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
ROGER WILLIAM CARD, III
V.
CASE NO. 3:14CV830 (SRU)(WIG)
DR. COLEMAN, ET AL.
RULING ON PENDING MOTIONS
Pending before the Court are plaintiff’s four motions for
leave to file amended motions for appointment of counsel and to
compel.

While Plaintiff may file these amended motions, the

relief requested is denied for the reasons discussed below.

The

motion to compel is denied.
I.

Motions for Leave to File an Amended Motion for Counsel
[Doc. Nos. 15, 22]
The plaintiff seeks leave to file amended motions for

appointment of counsel in response to Magistrate Judge
Garfinkel’s October 8, 2014 Ruling denying his first motion for
appointment of counsel.

The Court construes these motions as

amended motions for appointment of counsel.
The Second Circuit has made clear that before an appointment
is even considered, the indigent person must demonstrate that he
is unable to obtain counsel or legal assistance.

See Hodge v.

Police Officers, 802 F.2d 58, 61 (2d Cir. 1986).

In denying the

plaintiff’s prior motion for appointment of counsel, Judge
Garfinkel noted that in July 2014, a Managing Attorney from the
Inmates’ Legal Assistance Program had informed the plaintiff that
she could not represent him, but that legal staff in her office
might be able to assist him in litigating his case.

She directed

the plaintiff to schedule a legal call if he had questions or

required assistance.

See Rul. Pend. Mots., Doc. No. 12.

In the amended motions for appointment of counsel, the
plaintiff fails to indicate whether he has contacted attorneys at
the Inmates’ Legal Assistance Program since the date the Court
denied his prior motion for appointment of counsel.

Instead, the

plaintiff asks the Court to appoint Attorney Norman Pattis to
represent him as pro bono counsel.

The plaintiff does not,

however, state whether he has made any efforts to contact
Attorney Pattis to determine if he might agree to represent him
as pro bono counsel.
The Court concludes that the plaintiff has not made
sufficient efforts to secure legal assistance or representation
on his own.

The possibility that the plaintiff may be able to

secure legal assistance independently precludes appointment of
counsel by the Court at this time.
Within the amended motions for appointment of counsel, the
plaintiff also states that he is requesting leave to amend his
complaint and generally asserts that the court should freely
grant litigants leave to amend.

He fails to include any basis to

grant him leave to file an amended complaint.

Thus, to the

extent that the plaintiff’s motions may be construed as asserting
requests for leave to amend the complaint, the requests are
denied.
II.

Motions for Leave to File Amended Motions for Counsel
[Doc. Nos. 20, 21]
The plaintiff seeks leave to file amended motions for

appointment of counsel.

The Court construes the motions as
2

amended motions for appointment of counsel.
The Second Circuit has made clear that before an appointment
is even considered, the indigent person must demonstrate that he
is unable to obtain counsel or legal assistance.
F.2d at 61.

See Hodge, 802

The plaintiff claims that the issues in this case

are complex and that he has limited access to legal materials.
He indicates that he contacted two law firms, a legal clinic, and
the New Haven County Bar Association’s Lawyer Referral Service.
The two law firms declined to represent the plaintiff and the
supervising attorney at the law clinic indicated that she did not
have the resources to take on another case.

The staff at the

Lawyer Referral Service suggested that the plaintiff contact the
Inmates’ Legal Assistance Program.
The plaintiff fails to indicate whether he has contacted any
attorneys at the Inmates’ Legal Assistance Program since the date
the Court denied his prior motion for appointment of counsel,
October 8, 2014.

The Court concludes that the plaintiff has not

made sufficient efforts to secure legal assistance on his own.
The possibility that the plaintiff may be able to secure legal
assistance independently precludes appointment of counsel by the
Court at this time.
In addition, Plaintiff's amended motions for appointment of
counsel state that he is requesting leave to amend his complaint
and generally asserts that the court should freely grant
litigants leave to amend.

The plaintiff fails to include any

basis to grant him leave to file an amended complaint.

Thus, to

the extent that the plaintiff’s motions may be construed as
3

asserting requests for leave to amend the complaint, the requests
are denied.
III. Motion to Compel [Doc. No. 17]
The plaintiff states that in June 2014, he sent a request
for production of documents to the defendants seeking mental
health and medical files.

He claims that the defendants have not

responded to this request.
Rule 34, Fed. R. Civ. P. provides that a request for
production of documents be served on a party to the action.

See

Rule 34(a)(1) ("[a] party may serve on any other party a request
within the scope of Rule 26(b): (1) to produce and permit the
requesting party . . to inspect, copy, test or sample . . . items
in the responding parties possession or custody or control. . .
.").

The plaintiff’s request for production of documents is

addressed to the defendants generally.

Because it is not

addressed to a specific defendant, the Request for Productions of
Documents is deficient. See Hunnicutt v. Lantz, No. 3:07-CV-1422
(JCH), 2009 WL 290994, at *1 (D. Conn. Feb. 6, 2009).
Furthermore, a party may seek the assistance of the court
only after he has complied with the provisions of Rule 37(a)(1)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Under this rule, a

motion to compel must include a certification that the plaintiff
has made an attempt to confer with the person or party who has
failed to make disclosure in a good faith effort to resolve the
discovery dispute without the intervention of the court.
The plaintiff does not indicate that he made any attempt to
4

confer with the defendants prior to the filing of his motion to
compel.

Thus, he has not made the necessary good faith effort to

resolve the discovery dispute without the Court’s assistance as
required by Federal Rule 37(a)(1).
Rule 37(b)1 of the Local Civil Rules of the United States
District Court for the District of Connecticut requires that any
discovery motion filed with the Court be accompanied by a
detailed memorandum of law containing the specific items of
discovery sought or opposed.

The rule provides in pertinent

part:
Memoranda by both sides shall be filed with the Clerk
in accordance with Rule 7(a)1 of these Local Rules
before any discovery motion is heard by the Court.
Each memorandum shall contain a concise statement of
the nature of the case and a specific verbatim listing
of each of the items of discovery sought or opposed,
and immediately following each specification shall set
forth the reason why the item should be allowed or
disallowed. . . . Every memorandum shall include, as
exhibits, copies of the discovery requests in dispute.
D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 37(b)1.
The plaintiff has failed to file a memorandum that includes
the reasons why each of the requested documents should be
allowed.

Instead, he simply says that the discovery he seeks is

relevant to his claims.
Because the plaintiff has not complied with the provisions
of Local Rule 37(b)1 or Federal Rules 34(a) and 37(a)1, the
motion to compel is denied.
IV. Conclusion

5

The Motion to Compel [Doc. 17] is DENIED.

The plaintiff’s

Motions to File Amended Motions for Appointment of Counsel [Doc.
Nos. 15, 20, 21, 22], which the Court has construed as Amended
Motions for Appointment of Counsel, are DENIED without prejudice.
To the extent that the plaintiff’s motions may be construed as
asserting requests for leave to amend the complaint, the Motions
[Doc. Nos. 15, 20, 21, 22] are also DENIED with regard to any
such requests.
The plaintiff may file a new motion for appointment of
counsel at a later stage of the litigation.

Any renewal of this

motion shall include the name of each attorney or legal
organization contacted, the date or dates of contact, and the
reasons why assistance was unavailable.

If the plaintiff learns

that Attorney Pattis is willing to be appointed as pro bono
counsel in this case, the plaintiff may file a motion for
appointment of counsel seeking to have Attorney Pattis appointed.
Any such motion must include some evidence confirming Attorney
Pattis’ willingness to be appointed as pro bono counsel.
SO ORDERED this

4th

day of December, 2014, at Bridgeport,

Connecticut.
/s/ William I. Garfinkel
WILLIAM I. GARFINKEL
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

6