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

...,, _4iiWi____.___ ____,.,,,,,,,,,_,,,, ‘
" " “ Case 3:02-cv-01609-AWT Document 60 Filed 08/16/2004 Page1of2 E
%
l
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT g
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT Wm _ E
I
EULA! AUG Ib ::3 Ly, OQ i
DUANE ZIEMBA : EPM wlq __"· h
: PRISONER-a;{arH{§;$§UD?
v. : Case No. 3:O2CVl609%AWT)KD§Mjr'°
MARGARET CLARK, et al. E I
RULING AND ORDER g
Plaintiff has filed a motion for reconsideration of the i
denial of his motion to compel. 1
Rule 7(c)l, D. Conn. L. Civ. R., provides that a motion for (
reconsideration must be filed within ten days of the date of the \
decision from which relief is sought. The court denied
plaintiff’s motion to compel by ruling filed on May 27, 2004. A
motion filed by a prisoner is considered filed on the day the
prisoner gives the motion to prison officials for mailing to the
court. See Dory v. Ryan, 999 F.2d 679, 682 (2d Cir. 1993)
(Second Circuit has held that a pro sg prisoner complaint is
deemed filed as of the date the prisoner gives the complaint to §
prison officials to be forwarded to the court) (citing Houston v.
Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 270 (l988)). Plaintiff certifies that he
mailed his motion to defendants’ counsel, and presumably to the g
court, on August 3, 2004, more than two months after the date of
the decision. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion is denied as
- l
l
l
:
l l




sieaasasaaaaaagaassaaaasaarsaiszagezas;;;;;;;;;;;a;a;gg;;;;gggggggggggggEIEIZEEEZQSEZQZIIZIEZZEZZiiiijiiiiiifsiiiiii;:i;;;;iiiifififiiiiiifff
T7W5ERPTTT5IEhTTThihQITTTW5EIhTTIII`7“TTvvvvvT———eh—T——»ahr;,iiih_T_%HE_$h_TTyvbit


I
‘ " " Case 3:02-cv-01609-AWT Document 60 Filed 08/16/2004 Page2of2 1
I I I
untimely filed.1 I
Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration [doc. #57] is DENIED
as untimely filed.
SO ORDERED this l6“ day of Aug?g?, 2004, at Hartford,
_ A U I
Connecticut. E
DOEEA F. MARTINEZ I I
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
I
I I
I
I
I
I
?I
I I I I
1The videotape that is the subject of the motion to compel has
been filed by defendants in support of their motion for summary y
judgment. Thus, any concerns that the tape might be lost or _
destroyed are moot. I
2 ;
I I I
I I
I II
I I I