Free Order on Motion to Reopen Case - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

|—_W_“ ——
Case 3:00-cv-00720-JCH Document 40 Filed 10/16/2003 Page 1 of 3
I II ii-TY N
ii [.,.1 C` ,. nr ··
UNITED STATES DI @§`TC](gUK5I]'Qj: Q2
DISTRICT OF CO TICUT
WILLIAM CONNELLY : 1 ‘‘_‘ _A `I ._ . A l A
Plaintiff ; O
: CIVIL ACTION NO. l
V. : 3-00-cv-720 (ICH) ]
DAVID COSGROVE, ET AL : OCTOBER I6, 20()3 i
Defendants : R
RULING AND ORDER
I
On March 13, 2003, this court granted a Motion to Witlidraw Claims [Dkt. No. I
27] as to defendant Talton; dismissedall claims in the amended complaint with prejudice I
as to defendants Cosgrove, Wolff, Selig, Zacyzynski, Scott, Norko, Young, Lorenzen,
DeVeau and Iolm Does Nos.1—6; dismissed without prejudice to reopen and replead for
failure to state a claim all claims against defendants Wollenhaupt, Silvis, Clerk of Court and
Iohn Does Nos. 7-11 and as to the conspiracy claims against defendants Golemba, Strange,
I
O’Neil1, Whidden, Serrano and Cupka; and dismissed without prejudice to reopen and
replead all other claims as to defendants Golemba, Strange, O’Neill, VI/hidden, Serrano and
Cupka pursuant to 42 U.S.C. l997e(a) for failure to exhaust administrative remedies prior
to filing suit. [Dkt. No. 28] The court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction
over the plaintiffs state law claims. The court informed the plaintiff that he could move to Q
reopen the judgment by filing an amended complaint, provided he could allege facts to
state a claim against defendants Wollenhaupt, Silvis, Clerk of Court and Iohn Does Nos. 7- I
I
;;,;E-:+;.,c__,,,, _,_ _ · ~·*¤;-=
:E;;7{={·;·•— ua. ,., I .. . 'j’·"i; ¤ ·=‘*=’
A Case 3:00-cv-00720-JCH Document 40 Filed 10/16/2003 Page 2 of 3
11 and/or provide evidence of exhaustion of administrative remedies as to his claims i
against defendants Golemba, Strange, O’Neill, Whidden, Serrano and Cupka. [Dlct. No. J
28] ,
On March 26, 2003, Magistrate fudge Fitzsimmons denied a Motion to Amend {
[Dkt. No. 17], which Motion had been filed on September 3, 2002, before the court's
March 26, 2003 Ruling [Dkt. No. 30]. It, therefore, did not address the infirmities I
identified in this Court's March 13, 2003 Ruling [Dkt. No. 28]. l
The plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal [Dkt. No. 31] on April 7, 2003. The appeal l
was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the March 13, 2003 Ruling was not a final ]
order. [Dkt. No. 36] E
The plaintiff has filed a motion to reopen [Dlct. No. 34] and a motion for extension
of time to file an amended complaint [Dkt. No. 35]. In the motion for extension of time,
the plaintiff seeks additional time to permit him to exhaust his administrative remedies.
The Second Circuit has held, however, that the requirement of complete exhaustion of
administrative remedies, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), must be satisfied before a
federal action is cornrnenced. g Neal v. Goord, 267 F.3d 116, 122 (2d Cir. 2001)
(holding that an inmate may not avoid the requirements of 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) by I
exhausting administrative remedies after filing a civil rights action in federal court).
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the plaintiffs Motion for Extension of Time [doc. # 35] to exhaust
l
I


Case 3:00-cv-00720-JCH Document 40 Filed 10/16/2003 Page 3 of 3
his administrative remedies before filing his amended complaint is DENIED. The i
plaintiffs Motion to Reopen Iudgment [doc. # 34] is DENIED without prejudice. j
The plaintiff is hereby given 30 days to file an Amended Complaint, as the court
intended to allow him to do in its March 13 Ruling, provided he can allege facts to state a
claim against defendants Wollenhaupt, Silvis, Clerk of Court and ]ohn Does Nos. 7—1 I j
and/or provide evidence of exhaustion of administrative remedies as to his claims against
defendants Golemba, Strange, O’Neill, `Whidden, Serrano and Cupka. Any amended i
complaint must be accompanied by evidence that the plaintiff has exhausted his i
administrative remedies with respect to the claims against defendants named in that _
Amended Complaint. To the extent the court has dismissed claims without the right to
replead, the court‘s Ruling [Dkt. No. 28] in that regard cannot be appealed until the case
goes to final judgment. The Clerk is directed to reopen this case upon the filing of an
amended complaint.
so o1u>1=;11ED.
Dated at Bridgeport, Connecticut this 16th day of October, 2003.
— l
United States D1strict]udge
- 3, - N
l
l