Free Order on Motion for Extension of Time - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

{ -.»»4». ._...___ll_-
l Case 3:02-cv—O1662—RNC Document 34 Filed O1/07/2005 Page1 0f3
i
/ · DISTRICT COURT T
C T F CONNECTICUT
i I §”=:BMED
l ZUU5 JAN -`I F3 2= 3I
y U MICHAEL MORIARTY E
v. : Case No. 3:02CVi%%2FQ§QCFT Q
{ U RICHARD NEUBOULD, ET AL. g
RULING AND ORDER E
r Pending before the court are plaintiff’s motion for an é
I I extension of time to file an amended complaint, motion for service E
of subpoenas and motion for summary judgment. For the reasons set E
forth below, the motion for an extension of time is granted and the é i
other motions are denied.
I. Motion for Extension of Time ldoc. i 24 i
On February ll, 2004, the court granted in part and denied in
part defendants' motion to dismiss. The court dismissed all claims i
against defendant Neubould and all claims against defendant Stein Q
except the claim that he was deliberately indifferent to i I
plaintiff’s need for migraine headache medication from April l0 to I
April 24, 2002. Plaintiff was given 30 days to file and serve a I
motion for leave to amend his complaint, and a proposed amended {
complaint, alleging facts supporting a claim that Stein was y
deliberately indifferent to his acid reflux condition in May 2002. i
Plaintiff seeks an extension of time to file his motion for leave g
to amend. 0 i
` At the time plaintiff filed his motion for an extension of
` time, he stated that he could not meet the 30—day deadline because
K

44e.eaeesenseeseeseneaee;gs;ggsggggQegg;QEQQQeggEQ;QE §£{£$¥€
;::a<——e—e»»e;iiIlZ;j;;;;;i;;;;i“`f"""C""Ti""" " I `T `f`I`



.IliaiseeasesasesisseamsQEHEEEHEEHQEEngg;
:::::#~——e—#131iii3iSiZL1Ijj§jQQf`I"`“%““`""”`""“"I " ` ` 2. `f`I `C


Case 3:02-cv—O1662—RNC Document 34 Filed O1/07/2005 Page 2 of 3
f E he did not have a copy of his medical file. It appears from his
i E subsequently filed motion for summary judgment that he now has a i
` E copy of his medical file. Accordingly, his motion for an extension _ {
j E of time is granted. To be timely, any motion for leave to file an g J
é amended complaint must be filed and served, along with the proposed
é amended complaint, on or before January 31, 2005. In view of the i
g age of this case, and the court's prior scheduling orders, further i
2 extensions of this date will not be granted. E
: II. Motion for Service of Subpoenas [doo. § 26 § [
Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, ; l
asks the court to direct the United States Marshal to serve two 5
subpoenas for his medical records.1 The court’s power to grant
_ p1aintiff's request under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 is far from clear. As g
i noted above, moreover, it is apparent that plaintiff now has a copy
Q of his medical file. Accordingly, his motion for an order =
. directing the Marshal to serve subpoenas on his behalf is denied.
III. Motion for Summary Judgment ldoc. § 28 p
Plaintiff has moved for summary judgment on his claim that Dr. W
Stein was deliberately indifferent to his complaints of migraine I
headaches during the period April 10 to April 24, 2002. Defendant i
—-——-——————— %
1 In the alternative, plaintiff seeks permission to serve j
the subpoenas by certified mail. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45
i specifically provides that a subpoena be personally served. I“A i
_ subpoena may be served by any person who is not a party and is
g not less than 18 years of age. Service of a subpoena upon a
g person named therein shall be made by delivering an copy thereof
? to such person .... ” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(b)(1).
2 {
l

i Case 3:02-cv—O1662—RNC Document 34 Filed O1/07/2005 Page30f3
l 2
{E correctly argues in opposition to the motion that plaintiff has {
Q i failed to comply with applicable rules. Local Rule 56(a)1 provides
lg that “[t]here shall be annexed to a motion for summary judgment a
é document entitled ‘Local Rule 50(a)l Statement,’ which sets forth _ E
E in separately numbered paragraphs a concise statement of each i `
Q material fact as to which the moving party contends there is no ` j
E genuine issue to be tried.” In addition, “[e]ach statement of I
material fact in a Local Rule 56(a) Statement . . . must be
followed by a citation to (1) the affidavit of a witness competent E
' l to testify as to the facts at trial and/or (2) evidence that would
l E be admissible at trial.” D. Conn. Loc. Civ. R. 56(a)3. Because E !
plaintiff has not filed a Local Rule 56(a)l Statement, his motion g i
‘ for summary judgment is denied.
I IV. Conclusion I
i Accordingly, plaintiff's motion for extension of time is
hereby granted and his other motions are denied. W
So ordered this _;{; day of g)é£jt£f€?. 2005, at Hartford,
Connecticut.
. I [
United States District Judge i
i
I
3 {
l