Al-Bukhari v. Correction et al

Filing 52

ORDER: - Denying without prejudice 41 Motion to Appoint Counsel; - Denying 43 Motion to Compel; - Denying without prejudice 45 Motion for Extension of Time; - Denying without prejudice 47 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply; - Granting 49 Motion to Amend/Correct. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 8/23/18. (Kaas, E.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
JA-QURE AL-BUKHARI,
also known as JEROME RIDDICK,
Plaintiff,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTION, et al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

No. 3:16-cv-1267 (SRU)

RULING ON PENDING MOTIONS
On July 17, 2016, Ja Qure Al-Bukhari a/k/a Jerome Riddick, a Connecticut Department
of Correction inmate, filed a complaint pro se under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against several officials of
the Connecticut Department of Correction for violating his right to freely exercise his religion
under the First Amendment and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act
(“RLUIPA”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc, by denying him access to particular religious books. I issued
an Initial Review Order on May 17, 2017 permitting his First Amendment and RLUIPA claims
to proceed against the individual defendants. Initial Review Order, Doc. No. 24. The defendants
answered the complaint on August 21, 2017. Answer, Doc. No. 38.
On January 4, 2017, Al-Bukhari filed an “Emergency Order to Show Cause and
Temporary Restraining Order,” Doc. No. 12, requesting that I order the defendant to (1) remove
his leg shackles while he showers, (2) permit water in his cell to run for five minutes at a time to
accommodate ritual washing, and (3) permit him to purchase Halal items from the commissary.
After reviewing the arguments from both parties, I denied the motion for preliminary injunctive
relief because Al-Bukhari did not establish a substantial likelihood of irreparable harm in the
absence of such relief. Ruling on Emergency Mot. for TRO, Doc. No. 17. Al-Bukhari filed an

1

interlocutory appeal, which the Second Circuit Court of Appeals rejected. Mandate, Doc. No.
50.
The following motions are currently pending in this case: (1) Motions for Preliminary
Injunctive Relief, Doc. Nos. 39, 40, 44; (2) Motion to Appoint Counsel, Doc. No. 41; (3) Motion
to Compel Answer, Doc. No. 43; (4) Motion for Extension of Time to Conduct Discovery, Doc.
No. 45; (5) Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply to Motion for Preliminary Injunctive
Relief, Doc. No. 47; and (6) Motion to Amend/Correct the Amended Complaint, Doc. No. 49.
A. Motions for Preliminary Injunctive Relief (Doc. Nos. 39, 40, 44)
Al-Bukhari has filed three “Emergency Motion[s] for Order[s] to Show Cause and
Temporary Restraining Order[s]” against the defendants. Doc. Nos. 39, 40, 44. The first two
motions (Doc. Nos. 39, 40) seek orders requiring the defendants to restore Al-Bukhari’s
telephone privileges, the loss of which is allegedly depriving Al-Bukhari of his ability to contact
attorneys in Connecticut’s Inmate Legal Aid Program (“ILAP”) for assistance with his pending
federal cases. The third motion (Doc. No. 44) seeks an order requiring the defendants to provide
Al-Bukhari with his legal books, materials, and case files, which Al-Bukhari claims the
defendants are withholding. The defendants have not yet submitted responses to those motions.
Thus, I direct the defendants to file written responses to those three motions within twenty-one
(21) days of the date of this order.
B. Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. No. 41)
On March 16, 2018, Al-Bukhari filed a motion for the appointment of counsel to
represent him in the instant case and in several other cases currently pending in this court. Mot.
for Pro Bono Appointment of Counsel, Doc. No. 41. In the case caption of that motion, AlBukhari includes the name of this case and the case numbers of six other cases. The listed cases

2

are at different procedural stages. The procedural posture of a case influences whether
appointment of counsel is appropriate. See Holmes v. New York City Dep’t of City Wide Admin.
Servs., 2015 WL 1958941, at *1 n.3 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 30, 2015) (noting that court considered
procedural posture of case and standard governing appointment of counsel in denying request).
Therefore, Al-Bukhari’s motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. No. 41) is DENIED without
prejudice to refiling with an explanation why appointment of counsel is warranted in this
particular case.
C. Motion to Compel (Doc. No. 43)
On April 2, 2018, Al-Bukhari filed a motion to compel the defendants to send him a copy
of their answer to the complaint. Mot. to Compel, Doc. No. 43. Although the defendants
certified that their answer “was filed electronically [and served by mail on anyone unable to
accept electronic filing];” Answer at 5; Al-Bukhari claims that he never received a copy of the
answer. Al-Bukhari’s motion (Doc. No. 43) is DENIED, but the Clerk is ordered to mail one
copy of the defendant’s answer (Doc. No. 38) to Al-Bukhari at his current address.
D. Motions for Extension of Time (Doc. Nos. 45, 47)
With respect to his first motion for extension of time (Doc. No. 45), Al-Bukhari seeks an
extension of time until January 8, 2019 to conduct necessary discovery. In the motion, however,
Al-Bukhari does not explain why the nine-month extension he seeks is warranted in this
particular case; again he included three other of his cases in the case caption. Therefore, his
motion for extension of time to conduct discovery (Doc. No. 45) is DENIED without prejudice
to refiling with an explanation why an extension is warranted in this particular case.
With respect to his second motion for extension of time (Doc. No. 47), Al-Bukhari seeks
an extension of time to reply to the defendants’ opposition to his motion for injunctive relief.

3

(Doc. No. 40). The defendants, however, have not yet responded to Al-Bukhari’s motion in this
particular case. Therefore, the second motion for extension of time (Doc. No. 47) is DENIED
without prejudice.
E. Motion to Amend/Correct Complaint (Doc. No. 49)
On April 23, 2018, Al-Bukhari filed a motion to amend/correct his amended complaint.
Doc. No. 49. Through his amended complaint, he seeks to add three new defendants: Nick
Rodriguez, the current warden at Northern Correctional Institution (“Northern”), Derrick
Molden, the current deputy warden, and Correction Officer Collins, the current property officer
at Northern. Al-Bukhari asserts that all three of those defendants participated in events that bear
a close relationship to the claims in his original complaint. He also seeks to add a claim that
Rodriguez, Molden, and former warden Edward Maldonado violated his Fourteenth Amendment
right to due process by failing to provide him with adequate notice of the prison regulations and
a hearing before depriving him of his religious books. For the following reasons, I will GRANT
Al-Bukhari’s motion to amend his complaint.
A plaintiff may amend his complaint once as a matter of right within twenty-one days
after service of the complaint or within twenty-one days after service of a responsive pleading
(i.e., answer or motion to dismiss), whichever is earlier. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(A) and (B);
O’dell v. Bill, 2015 WL 710544, at *44 (N.D.N.Y. Feb. 18, 2015). In all other cases, the plaintiff
may amend his complaint only with the court’s leave. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Rule 15(a)(2) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that I grant permission to amend a complaint
“when justice so requires.” “In the absence of any apparent or declared reason – such as undue
delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies
by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of the

4

allowance of the amendment, futility of the amendment, etc. – the leave should, as the rules
require, be ‘freely given.’” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). “This relaxed standard
applies with particular force to pro se litigants. A pro se complaint is to be read liberally, and
should not be dismissed without granting leave to amend at least once when such a reading gives
any indication that a valid claim might be stated.” Pangburn v. Culbertson, 200 F.3d 65, 70 (2d
Cir. 1999) (emphasis in original; internal quotations omitted).
Al-Bukhari is not entitled to amend his complaint as a matter of right because over eight
months have passed since the defendants filed their answer to the initial complaint, but I do not
find any reason to deny him permission to submit an amended complaint. The second amended
complaint raises the same claims as his initial complaint. The new defendants Al-Bukhari seeks
to join to the action allegedly committed the same First Amendment and RLUIPA violations as
the existing defendants by depriving Al-Bukhari of the same religious books. Thus, although
later in time, the First Amendment and RLUIPA claims against the new defendants were based
on the same transaction or occurrence as those against the existing defendants. I will, therefore,
permit the First Amendment and RLUIPA claims to proceed against Rodriguez, Molden, and
Collins in their individual and official capacities.
Al-Bukhari also seeks to assert a newly-added Fourteenth Amendment claim in his
second amended complaint against Maldonado, Rodriguez, Molden, Robles, Morrison,
Melendez, and Collins. Although I already issued an order on April 11, 2018 limiting this case
to the First Amendment and RLUIPA claims stemming from the denial of religious books, see
Doc. No. 46, adding a new Fourteenth Amendment claim at this stage of the proceeding would
not be prejudicial. The defendants can file an answer to the second amended complaint
addressing Al-Bukhari’s Fourteenth Amendment claim.

5

ORDERS
(1) The defendants are hereby ordered to submit a written response to Al-Bukhari’s motions for
preliminary injunctive relief (Doc. Nos. 39, 40, 44) within twenty-one (21) days of the date
of this order.
(2) Al-Bukhari’s motion for the appointment of counsel (Doc. No. 41) is DENIED without
prejudice to refiling with an explanation why appointment of counsel is warranted in this
particular case.
(3) Al-Bukhari’s motion to compel (Doc. No. 43) is DENIED. The clerk is directed to mail one
copy of the defendants’ answer (Doc. No. 38) to Al-Bukhari at his current address.
(4) Al-Bukhari’s first motion for extension of time (Doc. No. 45) is DENIED without prejudice
to refiling with an explanation why an extension is warranted in this case.
(5) Al-Bukhari’s second motion for extension of time (Doc. No. 47) is DENIED without
prejudice.
(6) Al-Bukhari’s motion to amend/correct the complaint (Doc. No. 49) is GRANTED. The
clerk is directed to docket the second amended complaint as a separate entry. The clerk shall
then verify the current work addresses for Warden Nick Rodriguez, Deputy Warden Derrick
Molden, and Correction Officer Collins with the Department of Correction Office of Legal
Affairs, mail a waiver of service of process request packet containing the second amended
complaint to those defendants at the confirmed addresses within twenty-one (21) days of
this Order, and report to the court on the status of the waiver requests on the thirty-fifth (35)
day after mailing. If Rodriguez, Molden, or Collins fails to return the waiver request, the
clerk shall make arrangements for in-person service by the U.S. Marshals Service on him in

6

his individual capacity and he shall be required to pay the costs of such service in accordance
with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(d).
So ordered. Dated at Bridgeport Connecticut this 23rd day of August 2018.

/s/ STEFAN R. UNDERHILL
Stefan R. Underhill
United States District Judge

7