Townsend v. Muckle, 3:17-cv-900 (SRU). (2019)
Court: District Court, D. Connecticut
Number: infdco20191108e09
Visitors: 13
Filed: Nov. 07, 2019
Latest Update: Nov. 07, 2019
Summary: ORDER STEFAN R. UNDERHILL , District Judge . Because Timothy Townsend, Jr. ("Townsend") has identified John Doe 1 (doc. no. 53), the Clerk is directed to add Correction Officer Cyr as a defendant in place of John Doe 1. The Court deems all allegations in the complaint against Doe 1 to be against Officer Cyr. Officer Cyr shall be served and brought into the case as described below. In addition, Townsend requests an extension of time to identify John Doe 2. Doc. No. 66. Specifically, Townse
Summary: ORDER STEFAN R. UNDERHILL , District Judge . Because Timothy Townsend, Jr. ("Townsend") has identified John Doe 1 (doc. no. 53), the Clerk is directed to add Correction Officer Cyr as a defendant in place of John Doe 1. The Court deems all allegations in the complaint against Doe 1 to be against Officer Cyr. Officer Cyr shall be served and brought into the case as described below. In addition, Townsend requests an extension of time to identify John Doe 2. Doc. No. 66. Specifically, Townsen..
More
ORDER
STEFAN R. UNDERHILL, District Judge.
Because Timothy Townsend, Jr. ("Townsend") has identified John Doe 1 (doc. no. 53), the Clerk is directed to add Correction Officer Cyr as a defendant in place of John Doe 1. The Court deems all allegations in the complaint against Doe 1 to be against Officer Cyr. Officer Cyr shall be served and brought into the case as described below.
In addition, Townsend requests an extension of time to identify John Doe 2. Doc. No. 66. Specifically, Townsend requests an unredacted copy of the "staff roster." In lieu of providing the "staff roster," the Defendants are directed to provide Townsend with a list of the people working in the relevant areas of Corrigan-Radgowski Correctional Center on the night of January 21, 2015. Townsend will have 14 days from receipt of that list to identify Doe 2. If Townsend does not identify Doe 2 in that time, the case against Doe 2 will be dismissed.
Accordingly, the Court enters the following ORDERS.
(1) The Court hereby directs the clerk to verify the current work address for Officer Cyr with the DOC Office of Legal Affairs, to mail a waiver of service of process request packet containing this order and the amended complaint (doc. no. 10) to Officer Cyr at his confirmed address within twenty-one (21) days of the date of this Order, and report to the court on the status of the waiver request on the thirty-fifth (35) day after mailing. If the defendant fails to return the waiver request, the clerk shall contact the DOC Office of Legal Affairs and arrange for in-person service on that defendant in his individual capacity, and the defendant shall be required to pay the costs of such service in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d).
(2) Defendant Officer Cyr shall file a response to the amended complaint either in an answer or motion to dismiss, within 60 days from the date of the notice of lawsuit and waiver of service of summons forms are mailed to defendant. If defendant chooses to file an answer, defendant shall admit or deny the allegations and respond to the cognizable claims recited above. They may also include any and all additional defenses permitted by the Federal Rules.
(3) My Ruling, Doc. No. 63, set November 9, 2019 as the deadline for discovery. That deadline is extended four months to March 9, 2020. The parties must comply with the District of Connecticut "Standing Order Re: Initial Discovery Disclosures," which will be sent to Defendant Cyr by the Court. The Order can also be found at http://ctd.uscourts.gov/administrative-standing-orders.
(4) My Ruling, Doc. No. 63, also set January 6, 2020 as the deadline for motions for summary judgment. That deadline is extended to May 6, 2020.
Source: Leagle
