Free Response - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

I ' . ....,e.._+I4?.,..-··..»-.4.... ->-—`_,»-·»—··-—-—-—··-·— # ·—~··—·~··-··——*—·-·——*·· ·· -——··—···—·————-—
I _, Case 3:02-cv-O214?»J§A Document 46 Filed 07/O9/2004 Paget of 3
I T _.
I
I I . .
‘ Fil eeee
I _ mutt JUL ·—‘) A ll* we
I UNITED STATES DISTRICT cOuIR§_ I;II5_IIzIg_I GIIlQ,ifi—,`l
I DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT =.Is·.2t.¤a;I;I»IIlt I. Q
I I
I II MIGL EL A. DIAZ ; CIVIL ACTION NO.
I Pro se : 3:02CV2147 (JBA)
I =
I I
I BRIAN FOLEY I
I Defendant : JULY 6, 2004
I .
I REPLY MEMORANDUM IN FURTI-IER SUPPORT I
I OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT I
I The defendant, Brian Foley, hereby submits this Reply Memorandum with respect I
I I to the pending Motion for a More Definite Statement pursuant to Rule 12(e) ofthe I
I Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requesting the source of the federal constitutional or
I I
statutory right of which the plaintiff alleges he was deprived. I
On or about June 12, 2004, the plaintiff filed a Memorandum in support of his I
I
object on to the defendant’s Motion. However, the plaintiff’s Memorandum does not
It
I refute any of the specific instances of inadequate pleadings recited by the defendant in
II his Memorandum. Rather, the plaintiff attempts to correct the inadequacy of his
pleadi Tgs by identifying the specific constitutional right he alleges he was deprived of in I
I I
his Ms morandum. Nevertheless, the constitutional violation the plaintiff alleges must
be set forth in his Complaint, the operative pleadings, as Rule 8 requires that the
I
One Gooilwin Square Phone (860) 522-(1l03
I 25 It I I S r · 860 8-000
gt léfét It SAGE IIII §.?::;t..?£;l05 °
I
I .- .t.. f ig A - A- -F



I -T_-wu---
i -: Case 3:02-cv-O214@;§3A Document 46 Filed 07/0%/§>O4 Page 2 of 3
ll
ll *
. il
l pleading shall set forth "a short and plain statement of the claim showing the pleader is
i entitled to reIief." F.R.C.P. Rule 8(a). Accordingly, the plaintiff needs to amend his
Complaint, as without knowledge in the Complaint of the constitutional provisions on l
which the plaintiff relies, the defendant is not able to frame the issues for trial.
in summary, the plaintiffs opposition affords no basis to deny the relief sought.
l Plaintiff has not, in any meaningful sense, challenged the defendant’s showing as to the
insufficiency of the pIaintiff’s Complaint. Accordingly, the defendant’s Motion for a More
l .
Define Statement shouldbe granted. I
0 VIHEEREFORE, it is respectfully requested that the Court grant the defendant’s E
E Motion.
ll
l THE DEFENDANT: ,
l anim FO
, V
l IC P. Daigle 0
Hg HALLORAN 8. SAGE LLP
Fed. Bar #ct23486
One Goodwin Square
l 225 Asylum Street
l Hartford, CT 06103 ;
i (860) 522—6103
l DaigIe@halIoran—sage.com
ll t
One Gooc win Square Phone (860) 522-6103
i l m Fax (S60) 548-0006
ltii.tf3.?C§2.i£r;3 wrctiailr
L rl

E ll n
l ____ V
i ji ‘ ‘ Q p Case 3:02-cv-O214@JBA Document 46 Filed 07/0972j)04 Page 3 of 3
l
H l .
{
li
ll
N l
c6Rn»=icATioN
This is to certify that on this 6"‘ day of July, 2004, a copy of the foregoing
i\/lemcrandum of Law was mailed, postage prepaid, to:
Manuel A. Diaz, Inmate # 250008
l C.R.C.l.
lg P.O. Eaox 1400
, Enfield, CT 0606 ‘

l nc P. Da - /
l r
567056.1 I
l
ii l
l
l
‘
- 3 —
One Goo: win Squ arc Phone (S60) 522-6103
§22 l rn 860 - 006
l...i.?:3.?aS:i?is3 wiciiailii §.?.¥:.‘N..’2;ii2
,_ l __ __ - .,, , i