Vicente v. Corrections et al

Filing 36

ORDER: For the reasons set forth in the attached document, the plaintiff's Motion to Compel (Doc. No. 26 ) is hereby DENIED as moot and the Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. No. 28 ) is hereby DENIED without prejudice. Signed by Judge Alvin W. Thompson on 7/11/18. (Mata, E.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
LUIS VICENTE,
Plaintiff,
v.
DEP’T OF CORRECTIONS, ET AL.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Case No. 3:17cv1200(AWT)

RULING ON PENDING MOTIONS
The plaintiff is currently incarcerated at Northern
Correctional Institution.

He filed a complaint pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983 and the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”)
against the Department of Correction, Warden Allison Black,
Deputy Warden Kim Jones, Health Services Administrator Bryan
Liebel, Correctional Officer J. Alexander and Nurse Jane Doe.
Pending before the court are the plaintiff’s motions to compel
and for appointment of counsel.
I.

Motion to Compel [ECF No. 26]
On December 18, 2017, the court dismissed all claims

against the State of Connecticut Department of Correction, the
claims for monetary damages and injunctive and declaratory
relief against the remaining defendants in their official
capacities and the Fifth and Eighth Amendment claims and the ADA
claim against the remaining defendants in their individual

capacities.

See Initial Review Order, ECF No. 13, at 20.

The

court concluded that the Fourteenth Amendment deliberate
indifference to safety and deliberate indifference to medical
needs claims would proceed against defendants Black, Jones,
Liebel, Alexander and Jane Doe in their individual capacities.
See id. at 14, 18.

The court informed the plaintiff that the

Clerk could not serve the complaint on the Jane Doe defendant
without knowing her first and last name and permitted the
plaintiff sixty days to provide the court with the first and
last name of the Jane Doe defendant.
On April 4, 2018, the plaintiff informed the court that the
Jane Doe defendant was Licensed Practical Nurse M. Gary.
Mot. Extension Time, ECF No. 23, at 3.

See

The plaintiff sought an

extension of time to identify Nurse Gary’s first name.

On April

5, 2018, the court granted the motion and directed the plaintiff
to file a notice indicating the first and last name of Nurse M.
Gary and to file an amended complaint listing Nurse M. Gary as a
defendant by May 21, 2018.
On June 13, 2018, the plaintiff filed a motion to compel
disclosure.

He seeks an order directing the defendants to

disclose the first name of Nurse M. Gary.

2

The plaintiff claims

that he is unable to obtain this information because he is
incarcerated.
The court has verified with the State of Connecticut
Department of Correction Office of Legal Affairs that Licensed
Practical Nurse Monique Gary is currently employed at New Haven
Correctional Center.

Accordingly, the court will direct the

Clerk to serve a copy of the complaint, the initial review order
and this order on LPN Monique Gary in her individual capacity at
New Haven Correctional Center.

In view of this order, the

motion to compel the defendants to disclose the first name of
Nurse Gary is being denied as moot.
II.

Motion for Appointment of Counsel [ECF No. 28]
The plaintiff seeks the appointment of pro bono counsel as

an accommodation under ADA.

The plaintiff claims that he has a

learning disability, is illiterate and does not know how to
write.

He has relied on other inmates to draft his complaint

and to file motions in this case.

He asserts that ‘[h]e has

been recognized in the Judicial System, priorly, to be
illiterate and unable to write due to his learning disability.”
As indicated above, the court has dismissed the plaintiff’s
claims that the defendants violated his rights under the ADA.

3

The plaintiff states that an attorney at the Inmate Legal
Aid Program (“ILAP”) sent him materials but he cannot comprehend
them.

He contends that attorneys at ILAP cannot draft motions

on his behalf pursuant to ILAP’s contract with the Department of
Correction.
The court notes that State of Connecticut Department of
Correction Administrative Directive 10.3 provides that the
Department of Correction “shall contract with a law firm/agency
to provide legal assistance to inmates and inmate access to the
civil judicial system.”1

Id. at 10.3(3).

The scope of the

services provided by the law firm or agency includes rendering
assistance “through advice, counsel and physical preparation of
meaningful legal papers such as writs, complaints, motions and
memorandum of law for claims having legal merit.”

Id. at

10.3(4).
The plaintiff does not indicate whether he has communicated
with ILAP by telephone.

Although the attorneys at ILAP may not

be able to represent the plaintiff in this action, they may be
available to speak to him by telephone and to answer questions
or provide instruction on how to file or respond to motions or

1

Administrative Directive 10.3, Inmate Legal Assistance (revised
November 18, 2015), is available at http://portal.ct.gov//media/DOC/Pdf/Ad/ad1003pdf.pdf.

4

conduct discovery and also may be available to draft motions or
memoranda in response to motions.

Thus, the plaintiff has not

demonstrated that assistance is not available through ILAP.
In addition, in this district there are limited resources
in terms of counsel who are available to accept pro bono
appointments.

The record as it stands, without an answer or

motion having been filed in opposition to the complaint, does
not support a finding that the plaintiff’s claims pass the test
of likely merit.
62 (1986).

See Hodge v. Police Officers, 802 F.2d 58, 60-

Thus, the appointment of counsel at this time would

not be a good use of a limited resource.

The motion for

appointment of counsel is denied without prejudice to re-filing
at a later stage of the litigation, provided the plaintiff has
attempted to secure assistance from the ILAP by telephone.
Conclusion
The Motion to Compel, [ECF No. 26], is hereby DENIED as
moot.

The Motion for Appointment of Counsel, [ECF No. 28] is

hereby DENIED without prejudice.
Within twenty (20) days of the date of this order, the
Clerk shall mail a copy of the complaint, the initial review
order and this order and a waiver of service of process request
packet to LPN Monique Gary in her individual capacity at New
5

Haven Correctional Center, 245 Whalley Avenue, P.O. Box 8000,
New Haven, CT 06511.

If Nurse Gary fails to return the waiver

request within thirty (30) days of the date the waiver request
is mailed to her, the Clerk shall make arrangements for inperson service by the U.S. Marshals Service and the defendant
shall be required to pay the costs of such service in accordance
with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(d).
Defendant Gary shall file her response to the complaint,
either an answer or motion to dismiss, within sixty (60) days
from the date the notice of lawsuit and waiver of service of
summons form was mailed to her.

If the defendant chooses to

file an answer, she shall admit or deny the allegations and
respond to the cognizable claims recited above.

She may also

include any and all additional defenses permitted by the Federal
Rules.
It is so ordered.
Signed this 11th of July, 2018 at Harford, Connecticut.

_________/s/AWT_____________
Alvin W. Thompson
United States District Judge

6