Free Response - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

I Ie , ilgge 3:00-cv—00812—RNC Document91 Filed O9/21/2004 Page1of4 I
· UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
‘ DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
JANCIS FULLER CIVIL ACTION NUMBER: 3:00CV812(RNC)(DFM)
PLAINTIFF
·VS.
JOHN ARMSTRONG, ET AL.
DEFENDANTS SEPTEMBER 20, 2004
PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTION TO DEFENDANTS' SECOND MOTION FOR SUM ARY JUDGMENT I
Pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Judicial, the é§;intff§H I
Jancis L. Fuller objects to the defendants' second motion for summary §édgmens?
I filedion 8-2-04, because there are genuine issues of material fac£sIinIE§spu§;j I
I between at parties and because the defendants are not entitled t§%§§Pgmq5t a%&%% I
I matter] of 18.W- AW
I In support of this objection, the plaintiff submits a memorandim ofnlaw, I
I dated!9-20-04, and the following documents as exhibits: 79 *'
1. Docket Sheets, CR10-226195, 6-30-95 to 2-3-97 (certified copy, 4 pages) I
2. Substitute Information, CR10-226195 by Kevin Kane, 1-31-97
3. Tnial Transcript, CR10—226195, 2-26-97, pages 186-197 I
4. Réquest Form by Janois Fuller,-11-7-98
5. Gnievance by Jancis Fuller, 11-17-98 I
6. Request Form to Dental Assistant Hutchinson by Jancis Fuller, 12-2-98 I
I 7. Affidavit by Jancis Fuller, 9-14-04 _
I 8. Affidavit by Richard Rocco, 8-9-02 `
I 9. Connecticut Department of Correction Administrative Directive 8.4 (1999) page 2 I
I 10. Reguest Form to Dr. Sirosi by Jancis Fuller, 11-30-99
I 11. Affidavit by Tamyra Sellers, 9-13-04
12. Request Form to Medical Unit Staff by Jancis Fuller, 12-10-01
13. Affidavit by Sheila Aldrich, 6-25-04
14. Review and Report of Dr. Patterson Concerning Jancis Fuller, 11-18-03 _
15. Furlough Application by Jancis Fuller, 7-20-02
16. Inmate Summary of Grievance Procedure, from York C.I. handbook, 1-94
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested that the defendants' second motion for
summary judgment be denied.
THE PLAINTIFF I
HEARINC REQUESTED
TESTIMDNY REQUIRED GL4LJL&;Z- é;@
ncis L. Fuller, pro se
I
I
“ I

é \.» ,_ 1
I l ‘· · =Case 3:00-cv—OO812—RNC Document 91 Filed O9/21/2004 Page 2 of 4
I T eracrxmcmrmom
‘ This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing objection was mailed/delivered
! •‘ r
= this k d day of September, Z004, to oppos1ng counsel, as follows:
I - .
l del1ne Melchionne
ssistant Attorney General
10 Sherman Street
artford, CT 06105 \
THE PLAINTIFF
\ Cl.»f\.(_,£.·<.° ,
Z ancis L. Fuller, pro se
201 west Main Street
0—North, F—8
Niantic, CT 06357
E
l
l t
\
\
N §
!
y E
l l
o a l
, t.... J--_ ?..|--W

1 _._ _ , _Case 3:00-cv-00812-RNC Document 91 Filed O9/21/2004 Page 3 of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
E DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
JANCIQ FULLER CIVIL ACTION NUMBER: 3:O0CV812(RNC)(DFM)
Pmrmnrrr
@8.
JOHN QRMSTRONG, ET AL.
DEFENDANTS SEPTEMBER 14, 2004 K. Eé
p ; AFFIDAVIT 1.lpI -``“ Eg tbi@
I STATE gor CONNECTICUT) ,._, `'`'
; ) SS: NIANTIC SEPTEMBER 14, 2004 QQQQU r' =*§Q
N country; or New LONDON) ·.;i,;i{Q1 U
L, Jancis L. Fuller, being duly sworn, hereby depose and stateaig QS
~ 1. I lam the plaintiff in the above-entitled case. I make this in |
opposition to the defendants' second motion for summary judgment, filed in the K
trial§court on 8-2-04.
2. Tde defendants claim in the motion for summary judgment that there exists
no geduine issue of material fact in dispute between the parties. In reality, there
are many genuine issues of material facts in dispute. L
3. Tde defendants claim that I am legally imprisoned under docket number f
CR10-226195, at 201 West Main Street, Niantic, Connecticut. In fact, I am illegally 1
impridoned under docket number CRIO-226195 at 201 West Main Street, Niantic, 1
Connedticut.
p 4. Tde defendants claim that defendant Henchy did not personally examine me at the 1
prison dental services office on 12-2-98 or at any other time. In fact, defendant
1 Henchn did examine me at the prison dental services office on 12-2-98 and he denied
me addquate dental care for my broken tooth that day.
5. The defendants claim that defendant Benard offered to apply an amalgam filling
to myébroken tooth to restore it after examining my teeth at the prison dental
f servides office on 3-26-99. In fact, defendant Benard did not even tell me that
an amdlgam filling could be used to restore the broken tooth that day.
6. The defendants claim that I made a demand to defendant Benard on 3-26-99 to be
allowed to visit the office of a dentist in private practice in the community to
i obtain a dental crown for my broken tooth. In fact, I asked defendant Benard if
he orlanother prison dentist could apply a dental crown to the broken tooth, and _
askedd but did not demand to be allowed to visit the office of a dentist in private {
practfce in the New London area only after defendant Benard informed me that the
broked tooth could only be restored with a dental crown, but that the Department
I . E
1
I I
s-1-»--—~m..*4................a*l.a,.,..ll..l.m............ll_....._.___l______1. N

= i I i
I l
p ;~» __ . Case 3:00-cv-00812-RNC Document91 Filed O9/21/2004 Page40f4 y
of Correction did not provide dental crowns to prisoners who needed them.
7. The defendants claim that defendant Benard offered me adequate dental care for
my broken tooth on 3-26-99 by offering to apply an amalgam filling to restore it
and that I refused the offer. In fact, defendant Benard did not offer to give the
broken tooth any restorative care, but instead offered to extract the restorable
tooth at that time.
8. The broken maxillary molar which the defendants have left in an untreated condition
since becoming aware of its need for restorative treatment on 12-2-98, has caused me
suffer periodic pain in my jaw, discomfort in my mouth when speaking or chewing
and swallowing food, and incidents in which I choked on poorly chewed food, since
the day the tooth lost a cusp, 11-7-98.
JCL/\£4,x ézi \;ZtajLQ.La,
ancis L. Fuller, pro se
201 West Main Street __ o
0—North, F-8 v_
Niantic, CT 06357 @
_ Subscribed and sworn to before me this_!E;1f1day of September, 2004.
Notary Public ' ; =
2 My commission expires on; c2 F7 )? I
i r l
I