Free Order on Motion to Vacate - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

I ‘¤
UNITED STATES DISTRICT_COUR§§I@» Ig W., fm} v
I TTJTT .
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
I I 2000 AP _ 6
P L I LD I: I q
STATEENWLOYEESBARGAHHNG 2 [;w;wN@YFmH,W
AGENT COALITION, ET AL, 1 T g~ >"giij;_;;;? QI * ·· f
Plaintiffs, : ‘ C
V. I CIV. NO. 3:03CV22l (AVC)
JOHNCiROWTAND,ETAL, :
Defendants. : APRIL 21, 2006
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO VACATE OR MODIFY STAY
Plaintiffs State Employee Bargaining Agent Coalition, et al, through counsel, respectfully
C move this Court to review, one last time, the stay of discovery entered in this action.
3:03cv221 (AVC). July 11, 2006. This is an action for damages
and injunctive relief brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and
alleging violations of the United States Constitution. On March
10; 2006, the court stayed discovery in this action on the ground
jthat the defendants had made a strong showing that the executive
actions condemned here were legislatively authorized and
»·v therefore entitled to absolute legislative immunity. The
plaintiffs now move to vacate the stay of discovery and allow
discovery to proceed on the plaintiffs’ claims against defendants
in their official capacities. In response, the defendants
maintain that legislative immunity is an absolute bar from suit
irrespective of the capacity in which the defendant is sued.
Having considered the arguments of counsel, the court agrees with
the defendants. Absolute legislative immunity “immun[izes¢st@te
officials] from suit under § 1983 for injunctive relief as well “`i
as damages based on their activities within the traditional ji
sphere of legislative activity.” Star Distrib. Ltd. v. Marino; I
613 F.2d 4, 9 (2d Cir. 1980) (emphasis added). For these . ml _
reasons, the motion (document no. 110) is DENIED. ?"iT »2 p
So ORDERED. · ` ` ‘”`"‘ L , ,__,
7 · A —· LD
i Alfred Vp Covello, U.S.D.J. [