Free Order on Motion for Hearing - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

i ik, , v r—
l 1;
J UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT §?§§ ETKE
i DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT _1 Nhiui 1T`-· i
i y Xml} Liiff r3 is ,4: gb
._ ji'; ·[} U {ifi T
LETROY DEVON HUNDLEY : MMKFIQHU CI
Â¥ PRISONER i
V- E Case No. 3:O2Cl663(RNC)(DFM) i
LEEN COMMONO, et al. ; i
l
E
RULING AND ORDER i
Defendant Christee, the only remaining defendant in this i
case, has filed a motion for summary judgment on the ground that i
plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies before
commencing this action. In response to the motion and to the i
court's notice informing him of the requirements for a proper K
response to a motion for summary judgment, plaintiff has filed a y
memorandum and a motion for evidentiary hearing. In the motion i
for evidentiary hearing, plaintiff states that he wants to B
present evidence showing that correctional staff tampered with i
evidence. The evidence would show, according to the plaintiff, l
that he exhausted his administrative remedies. It also would bei i
relevant to the merits of his claim. i
The defendant's motion for summary judgment is directed only E
to the issue of exhaustion of administrative remedies. Thus, any E
consideration of evidence relating to the merits of plaintiff's i
claim is premature. Plaintiff does not describe the evidence i
i
i
e;;;I;::::;:;;;;;;__p____V_y__i____y_Qi`y_QiR5_Yi`5—yi`5—V_Ri—V_%`—y_Hi—y_Hi—V_ki`i_w$`#
1%%- “ “ I on ·· ~·` =>‘


%%%” ff on ·· ·· S -~= he =>t


I I ` MWZMB Pae2d2 \
I Ig · Case 3:02-cv—O1663—RNC Document 52 Fnled 12 g \
| . . H.
· I
I I
I regarding exhaustion of administrative remedies or state why he
I cannot present his evidence by documents or affidavits. I
I The plaintiff’s motion for evidentiary hearing [doc. #51] is _
I DENIED. Plaintiff is afforded twenty (20) days from the date of I
this order to file a supplemental opposition to the motion for I
summary judgment. He may include in his supplemental opposition I
the evidence regarding exhaustion of administrative remedies I
which he discusses in his motion for evidentiary hearing. The I
plaintiff is advised to consult the court’s November 5, 2003
notice to guide him in preparing his supplemental opposition. I
SO ORDERED this Bm day of Decemb r, 2003?. t artford,
Connecticut. I I I
DONNAjEE MARTINEZ *' I I
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE I
I
I
I
I
Y
I