Free Reply to Response to Motion - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:00-cv-00391-HBF

Document 109

Filed 06/03/2005

Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT DUANE ZIEMBA V. FREDERICK THOMAS, ET AL. : : : JUNE 2, 2005 CIVIL NO. 3:00CV391 (HBF)

DEFENDANTS' REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT On March 21, 2005, defendants Armstrong, David Strange, Mark Strange, and Raymond Elterich filed a motion for summary judgment. By motion dated May 24, 2005, the plaintiff, proceeding pro se,1 has opposed the defendants' motion. The plaintiff does not oppose the granting of summary judgment for defendant Elterich and addresses the claims of the three other defendants. The majority of the plaintiff's opposition is merely a reiteration of the conclusory allegations in his complaint and as such, does not necessitate a reply.2 However, the defendants do reply for one purpose. The plaintiff has attached two grievances that he purportedly filed at Corrigan on January 27, 1998 and February 28, 1998. (Plaintiff's Motion, pp. 67 and 68). These grievances have no relevance or materiality to the legal issues presented in defendants' motion

1

Attorneys Antonio Ponvert and James J. Nugent have filed appearances for the plaintiff, however, neither attorney has filed anything in response to the defendants' motion. According to the plaintiff, he has been instructed to proceed pro se because Attorneys Ponvert and Nugent do not want to "invest their time and costs to oppose the defendants' motion." One "new" submission from the plaintiff is an affidavit from his mother, Pamela Ziemba. A cursory review of this document demonstrates that it too is merely a reiteration of the allegations in plaintiff's complaint and insufficient for consideration in opposition to defendants' motion for summary judgment.

2

Case 3:00-cv-00391-HBF

Document 109

Filed 06/03/2005

Page 2 of 3

for summary judgment. Nevertheless, should the Court be inclined to attach some relevance to these documents, the Court should closely question their authenticity. Upon examination, these grievances were not logged in by DOC officials as is standard DOC procedure and do not include any response from DOC officials as is standard procedure. Moreover, on information and belief, this is the first time these purported grievances have been presented by the plaintiff since the date of this incident in 1998. Additionally, in another case brought by the plaintiff: Ziemba v. Wezner, 3:98CV2370 (DFM), the defendants have convincing evidence that the plaintiff has, in fact, presented purported grievances that are not authentic. See Docket #s 117 and 119. Accordingly, should this Court be inclined to rely on these documents, it should be clearly noted that there is a significant question that needs to be resolved (likely through an evidentiary hearing) as to the authenticity of these grievances.

DEFENDANTS John Armstrong, David Strange, Mark Strange and Raymond Elterich RICHARD BLUMENTHAL ATTORNEY GENERAL

BY:

________/s/_________________________ Matthew B. Beizer Assistant Attorney General 110 Sherman Street Hartford, CT 06105 Federal Bar #ct16304 E-Mail: [email protected] Tel: (860) 808-5450 Fax: (860) 808-5591

2

Case 3:00-cv-00391-HBF

Document 109

Filed 06/03/2005

Page 3 of 3

CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was mailed to the following on this 2nd day of June, 2005: Duane Ziemba, No. 128963 Garner Correctional Institution P.O. Box 5500 Newtown, CT 06470 Antonio Ponvert, III, Esq. Koskoff, Koskoff & Bieder, P.C. 350 Fairfield Avenue, 5th Floor Bridgeport, CT 06604 James Nugent, Esq. Nugent and Bryant 236 Boston Post Road Orange, CT 06477

________/s/_________________________ Matthew B. Beizer Assistant Attorney General

3