Anderson v. Rehmer et al

Filing 30

ORDER denying without prejudice 23 Motion to Compel, 24 Motion for Summary Judgment, and 25 Motion for Default. Finding as moot 26 , 27 , and 28 Motions to Add Exhibits. Signed by Judge Victor A. Bolden on 08/24/2015. (LaPre, E.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

FRANCIS ANDERSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
PATRICIA REHMER, et al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CASE NO. 3:15-cv-542 (VAB)

AUGUST 25, 2015

RULING AND ORDER
Plaintiff, Francis Anderson, currently incarcerated at Northern Correctional Institution in
Somers, Connecticut, has filed this action pro se under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 challenging his mental health
treatment at Whiting Forensic Institute and within the Department of Correction. On July 17, 2015,
the Court ordered service of the Complaint. A return of service has not yet been filed. Mr. Anderson
has filed a motion to compel discovery, a renewed motion for entry of default, and a motion for
summary judgment with four motions seeking to add exhibits to that motion. For the reasons that
follow, Mr. Anderson’s motion to compel, motion for entry of default, and motion for summary
judgment are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, and his motions to add exhibits are FOUND AS
MOOT.
I.

Motion to Compel
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. Hanton v. Price, No. 3:04-cv-473 (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 as to the attempted resolution and specifying which issues were resolved and which remain.
Local Rule 37(b)1 requires that the moving party must file a memorandum containing a concise
statement of the nature of the case, a specific verbatim listing of each item of discovery sought and,
immediately following each listing, set forth the reason why the item should be allowed. In addition,
copies of the discovery requests must be included as exhibits.
In his motion to compel, Mr. Anderson states that he “wrote to defendants several times in an
attempt to resolve the dispute informally as required by local rule” and that the defendants told him
they would not respond to his Freedom of Information Act request and would not compromise. ECF
No. 23 ¶ 3. The motion must be denied for two reasons. First, a Freedom of Information request is not
a discovery request in this case. If Mr. Anderson is not satisfied with the response, he should address
the matter to the Connecticut Freedom of Information Commission. See Conn. Gen. Stat. § 1-206.
Second, Mr. Anderson has not complied with the local rules. He has not included copies of his
discovery requests, and his memorandum does not contain a verbatim listing of the discovery sought
and explain why each item should be allowed.
Mr. Anderson’s motion to compel is denied without prejudice.
II.

Renewed Motion for Entry of Default
Mr. Anderson renews his motion seeking to default the defendants for failure to plead. In

denying his prior motion for default, the Court informed Mr. Anderson that the defendants were not
required to file a response until 21 days after service of the complaint. Although Mr. Anderson refers
to proof of service in his motion, the docket contains no return of service showing that the complaint
was served on the defendants. The only information on the docket shows when the papers were sent to

2

the U.S. Marshal Service. This date does not show proof of service. Thus, Mr. Anderson’s motion for
entry of default is denied as premature.
III.

Motion for Summary Judgment and Motions to Add Exhibits
Mr. Anderson has filed a motion for summary judgment. Local Rule 56(a)1 requires that a

motion for summary judgment be accompanied by “a document entitled ‘Local Rule 56(a)1
Statement,’ which sets forth in separately numbered paragraphs meeting the requirements of Local
Rule 56(a)3 a concise statement of each material fact as to which the moving party contends there is no
genuine issue to be tried.” Rule 56(a)3 requires that each statement in the Rule 56(a)1 Statement
“must be followed by a specific citation to (1) the affidavit of a witness competent to testify as to the
facts at trial and/or (2) evidence that would be admissible at trial.” This requirement applys to
attorneys and pro se litigants.
Mr. Anderson has not provided the required Local Rule 56(a)1 Statement. Accordingly, his
motion for summary judgment is denied without prejudice to refiling in proper form. As the summary
judgment motion has been denied, the motions to add exhibits to that motion are moot.
IV.

Conclusion
Mr. Anderson’s motion to compel [Doc. #23] and motion for summary judgment [Doc. #24]

are DENIED without prejudice. Mr. Anderson’s renewed motion for entry of default [Doc. #25] is
DENIED as premature. The motions to add exhibits [Docs. ##26, 27, 28, 29] are FOUND AS MOOT.
SO ORDERED at Bridgeport, Connecticut, this twenty-fifth day of August 2015.

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

3