Free Motion to Amend/Correct - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:03-cv—OO61 -FlNC Document 32 Filed 03/ 1 O/2004 Page 1 of 3
Zlilllt fifth I O A I !=
unrrini smrns nrsrmcr counr ·, §Qi£?il,f.i‘§.i§§l` UQ,.lJtil”
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT l *·°· *; 1 " iid Ur C ?·
PHILIP M. ANDREWS, : PRISONER CASE
Plaintf : Civil No. 3:03CV6l l (RNC)
vs. E j
REGINALD ALLEN, March 476'Z 2004
Defendant
MOTION TO ADD DEFENDANT E
The Plaintiff Philip Andrews, pro se, respectfully moves that the City of Hartford be {
added as a Defendant in this case, pursuant to the attached Addition to More Definite Statement.
The Plaintiff s claim against the City of Hartford is brought pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. §7 -465 . I
The Plaintiff cannot prove, and therefore does not allege, any corporate misconduct by the City.
The Plaintiff is a prison inmate, in the custody and control ofthe Connecticut Department
of Correction. The Plaintiff filed this action pro se, without assistance from legal counsel. Prior i
to commencing this action, the Plaintiff gave due and timely notice to the City of Hartford of his
intention to commence this action, in accordance with Conn. Gen. Stat. §7 -465. The Plaintiff did
not understand the need to expressly designate the City of Hartford as a defendant in this action.

I - Case 3:03-cv—OO61 1-RNC Document 32 Filed 03/ 1 O/2004 Page 2 of 3
I
In view ofthe notice already given, the City of Hartford cannot be surprised or prejudiced
by being formally added as a Defendant. On information and belief] counsel for the Defendant I
in this action is employed pursuant to an insurance policy which also provides for representation
and indemnification of the City of Hartford. Conn. Gen. Stat. §7-465 expressly contemplates I
representation of the individual Defendant and City by the same attorney. No factual or legal
issues will be added to this action, unless the Defendant denies the sufficiency or timeliness of I
the notice pursuant to §7—465, which the Plaintiff does not anticipate. If such is denied,
determinating the sufficiency or timeliness of the notice will not require extensive evidence. I
Addition of the City will benefit both the Plaintiff and the original Defendant, Reginald Allen,
the latter by potentially affording him indemnity pursuant to state statute, and will enable this
Court to provide full justice to all parties in this matter.
In the event that no Appearance is filed on behalf ofthe Defendant, City of Hartford, the
Plaintiff further moves that service be effected in accordance with his status informa pouperis, I
previously granted by this Court. ·
Respec ‘ . s bmitted, I
W I I . I
>·< ni. l...4ll our ··
I Philip * `¤ ews, Plaintiff, pro se
Inmate # 144452
Cheshire CI
900 Highland Avenue
Cheshire, CT 06410

“` ·· Case 3:03-cv—OO61 1-RNC Document 32 Filed 03/ 1 O/2004 Page 3 of 3 i

l
Ihereby certify that a true copy of the foregoing was mailed on March `/ , 2004, to: I
Atty. Eric P. Daigle i ‘
Halloran & Sage \
One Goodwin Sq. *
225 Asylum St. 1
Hmrem, cr 06103 /[Q/Vx/D ¤
Philip Andr ws
hmiate # 144452 i
Cheshire CI [
900 Highland Avenue ,
Cheshire, CT 06410
E
l
I
l
0 l
t
3 l
___ °‘°‘"—""l`