Free Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

i .» . .. Case 3:03-cv—00944—RNC Document 25 Filed 05/21/2004 Page10f2
) J
. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F:Eim&E[
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
ZD!1l¤MAY2| p pgs p
I JAMES MCKINNON LJS DICT i
y v_ cAsE N0. §1?0§g\I`;g§4 (RNc)h'f)(|i?)%F[§g-.[.é;OTITIRT
E YVONNE, et al. §
! RULING ON PENDING MOTIONS F
i Pending before the court are two motions for leave to amend. E
For the reasons set forth below, the motions are denied. Q
I. “Motion to File Private Suit on Defendant" doc. § 23| I
The plaintiff seeks to file a second amended complaint to i
name CTO James as a defendant. Because the plaintiff has already g
filed one amended complaint, he must seek leave to file another 3
amended complaint. Sgg Rule l5(a), Fed. R. Civ. P.
The plaintiff has not filed a proposed amended complaint with i
his motion to amend. Rather, he includes in his motion allegations I
that James opened two letters addressed to the plaintiff before he X
could inspect them. The plaintiff has filed another lawsuit naming f
CTO James as_a defendant, Mgginnon v. James, et al., Case no. )
3:O3cv2274 (SRU), which includes the same allegations as those in
the present motion to amend. Accordingly, the plaintiff’s motion i
to amend to add CTO James as a defendant is denied as moot. 3
II. Motion to Amend doc. i gil g
The plaintiff seeks to his complaint a count alleging a E
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The only i
allegations concerning an ADA claim are included on the last page \
of the proposed amended complaint. There, the plaintiff states E
l
)

1;;:;:==E==~==¤==::::2::::*'T““““““““*“`““"“”"fTT?”*?`T""""“""'*'***?_"`TTf:jiTTfiT



gagangs seasEEEEEEEQEE555EEEZZiiii€???E¥?;?


·· - = Case 3:03-ov—00944—RNC Document 25 Filed 05/21/2004 Page 2 of 2
1
that prisoners with disabilities are protected by the Constitution
and federal statutes and that prison officials must provide medical .
assistance to disabled prisoners. He also alleges that he has 1
undergone medical examinations, has received medical treatment and y
has physical and mental impairments that limit his major life
activities. The plaintiff does not allege that his rights under é
the ADA have been violated. ln addition, in a prior ruling denying E
a motion to amend to add an ADA claim, the court informed the l
plaintiff that he could not add an ADA claim unless he had
exhausted that claim prior to filing this action. The court »
informed the plaintiff that if he sought to renew his motion to a
amend to add an ADA claim, he must attach evidence that he had E
exhausted his ADA claim prior to filing this case. The proposed J
amended complaint submitted with the renewed motion to amend fails
l
to include any evidence of exhaustion of an ADA claim. The
proposed amended complaint is also deficient in that it fails to
include a claim for relief as required by Rule 8(a)(3) of the i
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, the plaintiff's E
motion to amend to add an ADA claim is denied. Q
Qgnclusion 5
The Motions for Leave to Amend [docs. ##W , 24] are DENIED. ?
SO ORDERED in Hartford, Conn;?i9cut, of I
, 2004. /
;5 1
Un'ted States Magistrate Judge
. 2
I
w
l
I