CASANOVA v. HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, 10-485-JD. (2013)
Court: District Court, D. New Hampshire
Number: infdco20130808928
Visitors: 7
Filed: Aug. 07, 2013
Latest Update: Aug. 07, 2013
Summary: ORDER JOSEPH A. DiCLERICO, Jr., District Judge. Daniel Casanova, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brought suit against two correctional officers, the Hillsborough County Department of Corrections, and the superintendent of the Department of Corrections, alleging claims arising out of incidents that occurred while he was incarcerated at the Hillsborough County jail. On April 1, 2013, the jury found in favor of the defendants on Casanova's claims that remained for trial. Casanova filed
Summary: ORDER JOSEPH A. DiCLERICO, Jr., District Judge. Daniel Casanova, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brought suit against two correctional officers, the Hillsborough County Department of Corrections, and the superintendent of the Department of Corrections, alleging claims arising out of incidents that occurred while he was incarcerated at the Hillsborough County jail. On April 1, 2013, the jury found in favor of the defendants on Casanova's claims that remained for trial. Casanova filed a..
More
ORDER
JOSEPH A. DiCLERICO, Jr., District Judge.
Daniel Casanova, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brought suit against two correctional officers, the Hillsborough County Department of Corrections, and the superintendent of the Department of Corrections, alleging claims arising out of incidents that occurred while he was incarcerated at the Hillsborough County jail. On April 1, 2013, the jury found in favor of the defendants on Casanova's claims that remained for trial.
Casanova filed a notice of appeal on April 2, proceeding pro se. He now moves to have the court send unspecified evidence to the court of appeals. While the request lacks specificity, the court interprets it as referring to the trial exhibits. The deputy clerk of court will contact the court of appeals to determine if the plaintiff's trial exhibits should be forwarded to that court for purposes of the appeal.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the plaintiff's motion (document no. 112) is granted to the extent that the plaintiff's trial exhibits will be sent to the court of appeals if that court notifies the deputy clerk that those exhibits should be forwarded to it. The motion is otherwise denied.
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
