Free Motion for Summary Judgment - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut


File Size: 29.1 kB
Pages: 2
Date: November 12, 2004
File Format: PDF
State: Connecticut
Category: District Court of Connecticut
Author: unknown
Word Count: 324 Words, 2,152 Characters
Page Size: Letter (8 1/2" x 11")
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/ctd/19030/55-1.pdf

Download Motion for Summary Judgment - District Court of Connecticut ( 29.1 kB)


Preview Motion for Summary Judgment - District Court of Connecticut
Case 3:02-cv-01341-AWT

Document 55

Filed 11/15/2004

Page 1 of 2

STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT LEO FELIX CHARLES VS. JACK MALEH, ET AL. : : : : : PRISONER NO. 3:02CV1341(AWT)(WIG) NOVEMBER 12, 2004

THE DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the defendants moves for summary judgment against the plaintiff's claims. Based on the evidence in this case, summary judgment is appropriate for the following reasons: 1. There are no material issues in dispute concerning the adequacy of the medical

and dental treatment that the defendants afforded the plaintiff. 2. limitations. 3. There are no material issues of fact in dispute concerning the plaintiff's claim that The plaintiff's claims against defendant Mingzer Tung are barred by the statute of

he was retaliated against. 4. 5. The plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to telephone calls. The plaintiff did not suffer a loss of good time concerning the disciplinary tickets

at issue and has therefore no liberty interest in being placed in segregation. 6. There are no material issues of fact in dispute concerning the plaintiff's claims of

conspiracy and discrimination.

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT REQUESTED. TESTIMONY NOT REQUIRED.

Case 3:02-cv-01341-AWT

Document 55

Filed 11/15/2004

Page 2 of 2

7.

The plaintiff has failed to show personal involvement of defendants Armstrong

and Rodriguez. 8. immunity. DEFENDANTS, Jack Maleh, et al. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL ATTORNEY GENERAL The defendants are immune from suit based on the doctrine of qualified

BY:__/s/_____________________________________ Neil Parille Assistant Attorney General Federal Bar No. ct15278 110 Sherman Street Hartford, CT 06105 Tel.: (860) 808-5450 Fax: (860) 808-5593 [email protected]

CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was sent by first-class mail, postage prepaid, this 12th day of November 2004 to: Leo Felix Charles, Inmate No. 193138 Cheshire Correctional Institution 900 Highland Avenue Cheshire, CT 06410

__/s/______________________________________ Neil Parille Assistant Attorney General

2