Free Response - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:03-cv—OO671—DJS Document 51 Filed O2/O3/2004 Page 1 of 2 J
` UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FZ; H I
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT ‘
ROBERT KALMAN, PRO SE : PRISONERZHUE H-B '3 I 3: 3q
Plaintyf ) _ _11
V. : Civil Action No. — _1 N Y
(DJS) (TPS) l;Zl·i€l¢€:." E ·i 1
ROBERT BERGER, ct al., :
Defendants, January 30, 2004 ‘

PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTION TO DEFENDANTS’ TWO SUR-REPLY BRIEFS IN
QJPPORT OF THEIR MOTION TO DISMISS I
The Plaintiff Robert Kalman hereby objects to defendanfs two. Sur—Reply, l
I
Briefs submitted January 20, 2004 and January 22, 2004, in support of the Motion to
Dismiss. The plaintiff is also submitting this response to clarify the defendants’
representation in their two Sur-Reply Briefs. As argued below, the plaintiff objects to
defendanfs Sur-Reply Briefs for the following reasons:
1) Defendants enjoy what may be termed a presumption of correctness as they use there
l
strategic position to take advantage over the claim; l
2) Defendants presentation in the Sur-Reply Briefs’ is riddled with inconsistencies;
3) Even if plaintiff succeeds in establishing an error in the ruling of the defendants in
confining him the error may not warrant reversal on appeal if the error has been
rectified by a subsequent ruling;
4) The plaintiff properly asserts a claim of invasion of legally-protected interests which
are (a) concrete and particularized, (b) actual and imminent, not conjectural or
j hypothetical;
5) Defendants arguments in the Sur-Reply Briefs is in conflict with the content of the
Exhibits attached;
‘ l
n
-» gg to r- e-»ce
so B- -, O se—e-

Case 3:03-cv-00671-DJS Document 51 Filed O2/O3/2004 Page 2 of 2 I
` 6) Contrary to defendant’s argument this Honorable Court has the authority and
t
discretion to exercise its jurisdiction; I
ACCORDINGLY, the Honorable Court should not entertain defendants’ Sur—RepIy ;
Brief and the Amended Sur—Rep1y Brief. I
I
Raspacwuttv suswrrao,
THE PLAINTIFF I
Rossnr KALMAN
B
Robert Kalman
Whiting Forensic Institute
P. O. Box 70 O’ Brien Dr
Middletown, CT 06457
l
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that a copy of the forgoing OBJECTION T0 DEFENDANTS Two
SuR—Rs1>1.Y BR1Er’s IN Suprokr OF THE Monos To Drsivuss was mailed in accordance
with Rule 5 (b) ofthe Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on this 30th day of January 2004
to:
Richard J. Lynch
Assistant Attorney General I
Henry A. Salton
Assistant Attorney General
Kerry Anne Colson
Assistant Attorney General
55 Elm Street, P. O. Box 120
Hartford, CT 06141 -0120 xt g 2
Robert Kalman, Pro se, :
Whiting Forensic Institute
2 I
n