Salmon v. Cahill

Filing 8

INITIAL REVIEW ORDER, Answer deadline updated for Cahill to 10/6/2014., ( Discovery due by 2/25/2015, Dispositive Motions due by 3/25/2015) Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 7/25/2014.(Payton, R.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

MARVIN SALMON,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAPTAIN CAHILL,
Defendant.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CASE NO. 3:14-cv-915 (SRU)

INITIAL REVIEW ORDER
The plaintiff, Marvin Salmon, currently incarcerated at the Corrigan-Radgowski
Correctional Center in Uncasville, Connecticut, commenced this action pro se pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. Salmon’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis was granted on July 10, 2014.
The defendant, Captain Cahill, is named in his individual capacity only.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (2000), the court must review prisoner civil complaints and
dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, that fails to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted, or that seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from
such relief. Id. In reviewing a pro se complaint, the court must assume the truth of the
allegations, and interpret them liberally to “raise the strongest arguments [they] suggest[].”
Abbas v. Dixon, 480 F.3d 636, 639 (2d Cir. 2007). Although detailed allegations are not
required, the complaint must include sufficient facts to afford the defendants fair notice of the
claims and the grounds upon which they are based and to demonstrate a right to relief. Bell
Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-56 (2007). Conclusory allegations are not sufficient.
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). The plaintiff must plead “enough facts to state a
claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. But “‘[a] document filed
pro se is to be liberally construed and a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be

held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Boykin v. KeyCorp.,
521 F.3d 202, 214 (2d Cir. 2008) (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007)).
Salmon alleges that Captain Cahill required him to share a cell with inmate Cook even
after Salmon informed him that Cook had threatened him. As a result, Cook assaulted Salmon,
placing him in a coma and causing brain damage.
The complaint will proceed on the claim that Captain Cahill was deliberately indifferent
to Salmon’s safety.
ORDERS
Accordingly, the court enters the following orders:
(1)

The Clerk shall verify Captain Cahill’s current work address with the

Department of Correction Office of Legal Affairs, mail a waiver of service of process request
packet to him at that address within twenty-one (21) days of this Order, and report to the court
on the status of those waiver requests on the thirty-fifth (35) day after mailing. If the defendant
fails to return the waiver request, the Pro Se Prisoner Litigation Office shall make arrangements
for in-person service by the U.S. Marshals Service on the defendant in his individual capacity
and the defendant shall be required to pay the costs of such service in accordance with Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 4(d).
(2)

The Clerk shall send written notice to the plaintiff of the status of this action,

along with a copy of this Order.
(3)

The Clerk shall send a courtesy copy of the Complaint and this Ruling and Order

to the Connecticut Attorney General and the Department of Correction Office of Legal Affairs.
(4)

The defendant shall file his response to the complaint, either an answer or motion

to dismiss, within seventy (70) days from the date of this order. If he chooses to file an answer,
2

he shall admit or deny the allegations and respond to the cognizable claims recited above. He
also may include any and all additional defenses permitted by the Federal Rules.
(5)

Discovery, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 through 37, shall be

completed within seven months (210 days) from the date of this order. Discovery requests need
not be filed with the court.
(6)

All motions for summary judgment shall be filed within eight months (240 days)

from the date of this order.
(7)

Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7(a), a nonmoving party must respond to a

dispositive motion within twenty-one (21) days of the date the motion was filed. If no response
is filed, or the response is not timely, the dispositive motion can be granted absent objection.
(8)

If the plaintiff changes his address at any time during the litigation of this case,

Local Court Rule 83.1(c)2 provides that the plaintiff MUST notify the court. Failure to do so
can result in the dismissal of the case. The plaintiff must give notice of a new address even if he
is incarcerated. The plaintiff should write PLEASE NOTE MY NEW ADDRESS on the notice.
It is not enough to just put the new address on a letter without indicating that it is a new address.
If the plaintiff has more than one pending case, he should indicate all of the case numbers in the
notification of change of address. The plaintiff should also notify the defendant or the attorney
for the defendant of his new address.
SO ORDERED this 25th day of July 2014, at Bridgeport, Connecticut.
/s/ Stefan R. Underhill
Stefan R. Underhill
United States District Judge

3