Free Order on Motion to Amend/Correct - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:00-cv-01011-JCH

Document 93

Filed 06/10/2004

Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT DANTE DELORETO Plaintiff v. SEBASTIAN SPADA, ET AL : : : : : :

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3-00-cv-1011 (JCH) JUNE 9, 2004

RULING RE: VARIOUS PENDING MOTIONS Pending before this court are numerous motions in the above-captioned case. With regard to plaintiff's Motion: Amend Schaffer [Dkt. No. 48], the pro se plaintiff apparently seeks to amend the Complaint to add "Schaffer." No proposed Amended Complaint, setting forth allegations concerning Schaffer, is attached to this Motion. The Motion [Dkt. No. 48] is hereby denied. Second, is a pleading captioned "Motion; FRCP 9" [Dkt. No. 60]. The clerk has docketed this pleading as a Motion. However, there does not appear to be any relief that the plaintiff seeks from this "Motion." Accordingly, to the extent that it has been docketed as a Motion, it [Dkt. No. 60] is hereby denied. Third, plaintiff has filed a "Motion; FRCP 8" [Dkt. No. 63]. In that "Motion" the plaintiff does not appear to move the court to take any action. Therefore, to the extent the clerk has designated the document as a "Motion", it [Dkt. No. 63] is hereby denied. Fourth, plaintiff has filed a "Motion; FRCP 9" [Dkt. No. 64]. In this pleading, plaintiff appears to reiterate what could be characterized as allegations, and demand for

Case 3:00-cv-01011-JCH

Document 93

Filed 06/10/2004

Page 2 of 2

damages. To the extent the clerk has docketed this as a "Motion," the court is unable to discern any action that the plaintiff seeks from the court, and therefore, it [Dkt. No. 64] is hereby denied. Lastly, the plaintiff has filed two pleadings; "Motion: Summary Judgement" [Dkt. No. 65], and Motion; "Summary Judgement" [Dkt. No. 66]. To the extent these purport to be motions for summary judgment, they are denied as being deficient in light of Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. There is no statement of material facts not in dispute attached, nor is there any evidence in support provided. Finally, there are no memoranda in support. Therefore, [Dkt. Nos. 65 and 66] are hereby denied. SO ORDERED. Dated at Bridgeport, Connecticut this 9th day of June, 2004.

/s/ Janet C. Hall Janet C. Hall United States District Judge