Osborn v. Williams et al

Filing 29

ORDER denying without prejudice 21 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Victor A. Bolden on 7/6/2016. (Shin, D.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
EARL OSBORN,
Plaintiff,
v.
OFFICER WILLIAMS, ET Al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Case No. 3:14-cv-1386

RULING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Plaintiff, Earl Osborn, commenced this civil rights action pro se and in forma pauperis
against Correctional Officers Williams, Stander, Burggos, BeeBee and Doe, Social Worker
Castro, Social Worker Jane Doe 1, and Captain Jane Doe 2. The plaintiff asserted claims of
deliberate indifference to safety and failure to protect from harm. On February 10, 2015, the
Court dismissed all claims against defendant John Doe and concluded that the Eighth
Amendment claims of failure to protect and deliberate indifference to safety would proceed
against defendants Stander, Burggos, Castro, BeeBee, Jane Doe 1, and Jane Doe 2.
On September 22, 2015, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. On April
18, 2016, the Court concluded that proper and effective litigation of this case could not be
achieved without appointing pro bono counsel to represent the plaintiff. On July 5, 2016, the
Clerk appointed Attorney Margaret B. Ferron to represent the plaintiff as pro bono counsel.
In view of the appointment of pro bono counsel and the likelihood that counsel will need
to conduct additional discovery and possibly amend the complaint, the defendants’ motion for
summary judgment [Doc. No. 21] is DENIED without prejudice. The defendants may re-file
their motion at the appropriate time, after the parties have conferred and a scheduling order has
been approved by the Court.

SO ORDERED at Bridgeport, Connecticut this 6th day of July, 2016.

/s/ Victor A. Bolden
VICTOR A. BOLDEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2