Free Order on Motion for Reconsideration - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

DF““—;”'““_-_"""‘—‘—"*""—·——*····———·~·———··——— ee»—————————-M-—~* ._Llli
Case 3:00-cv—00904—RNC Document 60 Filed 11/29/2004 Page1 0f2 {
UNIDTIESZ SITSTEOSF %I¤S&TNll:CTTI¤C¤%URT F Mt ED 1 l
ROBERT JACKSON, ; 2muNUv2q FD hi?] l
Plaintiff, ;
z PR1isowEr£"’ ’ ml/» Cl
V· : 3:00-CV—904(RNC) ,
WATERBURY POLICE DEP’T, :
ET AL., :
Defendants. :
g RULING AND ORDER
Treating plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. # 55)
as a motion to reopen the judgment, the motion is denied for i
substantially the reasons stated by defendants in their V
memorandum in opposition (Doc. # 56). 1
Plaintiff filed this action in May 2000, alleging that he 5
was subjected to a vicious assault by the defendants in February '
1999. The case essentially languished for years. Finally, on
March 15, 2004, the action was dismissed, primarily because
plaintiff had failed to attend his deposition as duly noticed and
4 ordered, despite repeated attempts by defense counsel to get his I
cooperation. {
In his motion for reconsideration, which was filed on June
I4, 2004, plaintiff states that, for “several months” preceding U
the filing of the motion, he was incarcerated, had no contact 1
with his family, and got no mail. This provides no basis for
reopening because, as defendants correctly point out, it does not E
l
)
4 l
{


za;assassseasgaasage;asss seeds;sellsasssQffffffgfgfsfsl;galfE;gfEEE?ffffEEE?5%¥Q¥QZQiiIQ?Q?3i;*iZ€i$i;%i:i;i?jiiiiii






saeasPssassesaaeeasasrsetsssseseEasssees sssefffflefglegesslglflfll€;E££EQQQQEEEQQEEEQEPEIQEZQ;;i;::i:it€ii?i?i?iiii?i?ii




N
Case 3:00-cv—00904—RNC Document 60 Filed 11/29/2004 Page 2 of 2
I
explain plaintiff’s persistent failure to respond to {
communications from defense counsel (and the court) before then,
which is what resulted in the dismissal. 0
Plaintiff states that he has tried to obtain counsel and
that such representation is now possible. But he provides no
letter or other statement from a lawyer stating that if the case I
is reopened the lawyer will appear. In the absence of such
evidence, the court has no assurance that reopening the case
will result in its prosecution to a decision on the merits.
Accordingly, the motion is hereby denied without prejudice.
If in fact plaintiff does have a lawyer, or is able to retain
one, the court will consider a renewed motion to reopen the case,
provided the lawyer enters an appearance for plaintiff and files i
the motion on plaintiff’s behalf or before December 31, 2004. {
Otherwise, the case will not be reopened.
So ordered.
Dated at Hartford, Connecticut this 25th day of November
2004.
;*
United States District Judge
I
E
l