Williams v. Hartford Police Dept. et al

Filing 296

RULING. For the reasons set forth in the attached ruling, plaintiff's 292 MOTION for Order to Return Legal Property and MOTION for leave to file are DENIED. In light of plaintiff's allegations concerning the disposal of his legal materia ls, and to the extent that plaintiff seeks an extension of the summary judgment response deadlines, he should file a motion setting forth the good cause supporting his request, and the position of defendants, in accordance with District of Connecticut Local Civil Rule 7(b)(3). Signed by Judge Sarah A. L. Merriam on 12/30/2016. (Katz, S.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
------------------------------x
:
CHARLES C. WILLIAMS
:
:
v.
:
:
CITY OF HARTFORD, et al.
:
:
------------------------------x

Civil No. 3:15CV00933(AWT)

December 30, 2016

RULING ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ORDER TO RETURN LEGAL PROPERTY
AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE [DOC. #292]
Pending before the Court is plaintiff Charles C. Williams’
(“plaintiff”) Motion for Order to Return Legal Property and
Motion for Leave to File. [Doc. #292]. Judge Alvin W. Thompson
referred this motion to the undersigned on December 23, 2016.
[Doc. #295]. For the reasons articulated below, plaintiff’s
Motion for Order to Return Legal Property and Motion for Leave
to File [Doc. #292] are DENIED.
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE
Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at the CorriganRadgowski Correctional Center in Uncasville, Connecticut.
Plaintiff represents that certain Department of Correction
(“DOC”) employees there have interfered with and/or disposed of
his legal materials, which directly impact his forthcoming
responses to the pending motions for summary judgment. See
generally Doc. #292. In the motion, “Plaintiff request
permission to file an injunction to order Department of

1

Corrections staff Lt. Wagner, and Warden Santiago to return my
legal property.” Id. at 4 (sic). The Court construes this
request as seeking injunctive relief.
“Preliminary injunctive relief is designed to preserve the
status quo and prevent irreparable harm until the court has an
opportunity to rule on the lawsuit’s merits. To prevail on a
motion for preliminary injunctive relief, the moving party must
establish a relationship between the injury claimed in the
motion and the conduct giving rise to the complaint.” Nicholson
v. Murphy, No. 3:02CV1815(MRK), 2003 WL 22909876, at *3 (D.
Conn. Sept. 19, 2003) (internal citations and quotation marks
omitted). See also McKinnon v. Tresman, No.
3:02CV2305(WWE)(HBF), 2004 WL 78091, at *1 (D. Conn. Jan. 9,
2004) (“To prevail on a motion for preliminary injunctive
relief, the moving party must establish a relationship between
the injury claimed in the motion and the conduct giving rise to
the complaint.” (collecting cases)); McAllister v. Goord, No.
9:06CV0442(TJM)(RFT), 2009 WL 5216953, at *2 (N.D.N.Y. Dec. 30,
2009) (“[T]he relief that a plaintiff seeks by way of injunction
must relate to the allegations contained in the underlying
complaint.” (citation omitted) (emphasis removed)); Curry v.
Bradt, No. 13CV355A, 2014 WL 7339039, at *5 (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 22,
2014) (denying motion for preliminary injunctive relief where
the retaliatory action in the motion was unrelated to the
2

retaliation alleged in the operative complaint).
Here, plaintiff proceeds pursuant to an Amended Complaint
alleging federal and state law claims against the City of
Hartford and its employees primarily relating to an alleged
false arrest and malicious state court criminal prosecution. See
Doc. #42. The relief requested in the proposed motion for
injunctive relief, i.e., for the DOC to return plaintiff’s legal
materials, does not relate to the conduct giving rise to the
allegations of the Amended Complaint. Accordingly, because
“[p]laintiff’s proposed motion for injunctive relief does not
concern the allegations in the ... amended complaint[,] ... it
has nothing to do with preserving [this Court’s] decision-making
power over the merits of [his] lawsuit.” Randolph v. Griffin,
No. 12CV745S, 2014 WL 3548967, at *8 (W.D.N.Y. July 17, 2014)
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted) (alterations
added). Therefore, plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to file is
DENIED, as any such motion filed in this case would be futile.1

Additionally, plaintiff seeks to enjoin the actions of Lt.
Wagner and Warden Santiago, individuals who are not named
parties in this action. Absent limited circumstances, “[t]he
Court has no power to enforce an injunction against individuals
who are not parties to the lawsuit.” Tolbert v. Koenigsmann, No.
9:13CV1577(LEK)(DEP), 2016 WL 3349317, at *3 (N.D.N.Y. June 15,
2016) (citations omitted); see also Gantt v. Lape, No.
9:10CV0083(GTS)(TWD), 2012 WL 4033729, at *2 (N.D.N.Y. July 31,
2012) (“[E]xcept in limited circumstances not relevant here, a
court may not order injunctive relief as to non-parties to an
action.” (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d); United States v. Regan,
858 F.2d 115, 120 (2d Cir. 1988))), report and recommendation
1

3

See also Stewart v. INS, 762 F.2d 193, 198 (2d Cir. 1985)
(holding district court lacked jurisdiction over motion for
injunctive relief relating to conduct not alleged in plaintiff’s
complaint).
MOTION FOR RETURN OF LEGAL PROPERTY
Plaintiff also requests that the Court order the DOC to
return his legal materials. See Doc. #292 at 6. Plaintiff
represents that his legal materials have since been lost,
misplaced, or disposed of by DOC staff. See generally id.; see
also Doc. #292-1. Because the Court cannot order the production
of something which plaintiff asserts is no longer available,
plaintiff’s motion for the return of his legal materials is
DENIED, as moot.
SUMMARY JUDGMENT RESPONSE DEADLINES
Plaintiff’s response to the official capacity defendants’
motion for summary judgment is due on or before January 4, 2017.
[Doc. #288]. His response to the individual capacity defendants’
motion for summary judgment is due on or before February 4,
2017. [Id.]. In light of plaintiff’s allegations concerning the
disposal of his legal materials, and to the extent that
plaintiff seeks an extension of the summary judgment response

adopted sub nom., Gantt v. Mielenz, 2012 WL 4033723 (Sept. 12,
2012).
4

deadlines, he should file a motion setting forth the good cause
supporting his request, and the position of defendants, in
accordance with District of Connecticut Local Civil Rule
7(b)(3).
This is not a Recommended Ruling. This is an order which is
reviewable pursuant to the “clearly erroneous” statutory
standard of review. See 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(a); and D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 72.2. As such, it is an order of
the Court unless reversed or modified by the district judge upon
motion timely made
SO ORDERED at New Haven, Connecticut, this 30th day of
December, 2016.
/s/
HON. SARAH A. L. MERRIAM
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

5