Sumler v. Chapdelaine et al
ORDER denying without prejudice 22 Motion to Appoint Counsel ; denying without prejudice 23 Motion for Summary Judgment. Please see attached Ruling for details. Signed by Judge Robert N. Chatigny on 1/10/2018. (Rickevicius, L.)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
CAROL CHAPDELAINE, ET AL.,
Case No. 3:16cv1600(RNC)
RULING ON PENDING MOTIONS
Plaintiff, Jamal Sumler, is currently incarcerated at the
Bridgeport Correctional Center in Bridgeport, Connecticut.
initiated this action by filing a civil rights complaint against
Warden Carol Chapdelaine, Deputy Warden Hines, Dr. David S.
Karimeddini, Nurse Barbara LaFrance and John Doe/Jane Doe of
University of Connecticut Correctional Managed Health Care.
Compl., ECF No. 1.
On January 23, 2017, the Court dismissed all claims against
defendants Chapdelaine, Hines and LaFrance and concluded that
the allegations asserted against defendants Karimeddini and John
Doe/Jane Doe stated plausible claims of deliberate indifference
to medical needs.
Initial Review Order, ECF No. 7.
The plaintiff has filed a motion for summary judgment and a
motion for appointment of counsel.
For the reasons set forth
below, the motions are denied.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 23]
The plaintiff’s motion is one page in length and includes
The plaintiff states that he is entitled to
$500,000.00 in damages for the defendants’ deliberate
indifference to a serious medical need and is also entitled to
$500,000.00 for pain and suffering.
The motion, however, is not
signed by the plaintiff.
Rule of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that
“[e]very pleading, written motion, and other paper must be
signed by at least one attorney of record in the attorney’s
name—or by a party personally if the party is unrepresented.”
Because the motion for summary judgment is unsigned, it does not
comply with Rule 11, Fed R. Civ. P. and must be denied.
the motion were signed, it is deficient in a number of other
In a motion for summary judgment, the burden is on the
moving party to establish that there are no genuine issues of
material fact in dispute and that it is “entitled to judgment as
a matter of law.”
Rule 56(a), Fed. R. Civ. P.
offers no facts and has presented no legal argument in support
of his claims for monetary relief.
Local Rule 7(a) requires that “[a]ny motion involving
disputed issues of law shall be accompanied by a memorandum of
Furthermore a “[f]ailure to submit a required memorandum
of law may be deemed sufficient cause to deny the motion.”
Subsections 1 and 4 of Local Rule 56(a), require that a
motion for summary judgment be accompanied by memorandum and a
Local Rule 56(a)1 Statement.
The “‘Local Rule 56(a)1
Statement,’ [must] set[s] 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.”
Local Rule 56(a)3 requires that each statement in the
Rule 56(a)1 Statement “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.”
The plaintiff has not filed a memorandum, Local Rule 56(a)1
Statement, or any evidence in support of his motion.
motion for summary judgment does not comply with the
requirements of Local Rules 7(a) or 56(a)1, 3 or 4.
addition, the plaintiff has failed to present evidence to
demonstrate that there are no issues of material fact in dispute
and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
of deficiencies outlined above, the motion for summary judgment
is denied without prejudice.
Motion for Appointment of Counsel [ECF No. 22]
The plaintiff’s one-page motion includes one sentence.
plaintiff asks the court to appoint him counsel.
The motion is
deficient because it is not signed by the plaintiff as required
by Rule 11(a), Fed. R. Civ. P.
The motion is denied for failure
to comply with Rule 11(a), Fed. R. Civ. P.
Furthermore, there is no constitutional right to appointed
counsel in civil cases.
Thus, the appointment of counsel in a
civil action is discretionary.
See Hodge v. Police Officers,
802 F.2d 58, 60 (2d Cir. 1986) (district judges are afforded
“broad discretion” in determining whether to appoint pro bono
counsel for an indigent litigant in a civil case); 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(1) (“The court may request an attorney to represent any
person unable to afford counsel.”) (emphasis added).
The Second Circuit has made clear that before an
appointment is even considered in a civil action, the indigent
person must demonstrate that he or she is unable to obtain
counsel or legal assistance.
See Hodge, 802 F.2d at 61.
plaintiff does not indicate that he has made any attempts to
find an attorney who might be willing to represent him in this
Nor does the plaintiff indicate that he made any
attempts to contact the Inmate Legal Aid Program with regard to
any questions he might have about litigating this case.1
at the following
Haven, CT 06510,
at the Inmate Legal Aid Program may be contacted
address and telephone number: Inmate Legal Aid
| Anthony | Burdo, LLC, 265 Orange Street, New
there is a possibility that the plaintiff may be able to secure
legal assistance or representation independently, the motion for
appointment of counsel is denied without prejudice.
The plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF. No. 23]
is DENIED without prejudice.
The Motion for Appointment of
Counsel [ECF. No. 22] is DENIED without prejudice.
plaintiff may re-file his motion for appointment of counsel at a
later stage of the litigation of this case.
Any renewal of a
motion for appointment of counsel shall be accompanied by a
summary of any attempts by plaintiff to obtain counsel or legal
assistance, including the names of the attorneys contacted, the
dates upon which plaintiff made those contacts and the reasons
why assistance was unavailable.
SO ORDERED at Hartford, Connecticut this 10th day of
Robert N. Chatigny
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?