Free Order on Motion for Default Entry 55(a) - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:02-cv-00230-EBB

Document 149

Filed 04/03/2006

Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

ROBERT SALATTO, JR.

v. Case No. TOWN OF BRANFORD, et al.

PRISONER 3:02 CV 230 (EBB) (JGM)

RULING ON PENDING MOTIONS Pending is defendants' motion for extension of time to respond to pending motions and motion for default. For the reasons set forth below, the motion for extension of time is granted and the motion for default is denied. I. Motion for Extension of Time [doc. # 142] Defendants seek an extension of time until March 17, 2006, to file responses to plaintiff's pending motions. The motion for extension of time is granted nunc pro tunc.

Because the date for filing responses has passed, the Court directs defendants to file responses to motions ## 110-112, 118-121, 123-135 and 139 on or before April 15, 2006. II. Motion for Default [doc. # 137] Plaintiff seeks to default defendant Grantland for failure to appear and plead. The docket sheet reflects that the United States Marshal attempted to personally serve defendant Grantland at the Branford Police Station but he no longer works there. He retired from the police force a year ago and left no forwarding address according to a lieutenant on the force. Thus, defendant Grantland has not been served in his individual capacity. In addition, the docket sheet reflects that the United States Marshal failed to properly serve defendant Grantland in his official capacity. Accordingly, defendant Grantland is not in default and plaintiff's motion is denied.

Case 3:02-cv-00230-EBB

Document 149

Filed 04/03/2006

Page 2 of 2

Plaintiff has submitted evidence, however, that suggests that although Attorney John J. Radshaw1 has not appeared for defendant Grantland, he does represent him with respect to this action. On June 3, 2004, Attorney Radshaw signed off on answers/objections to interrogatories posed to defendant Grantland and also responded to allegations in the first amended complaint against defendant Grantland in the answer filed on January 16, 2004. Accordingly, on or before April 15, 2006, Attorney Radshaw is directed to file a notice indicating whether he represents defendant Grantland, intends to file an appearance on his behalf and will agree to accept service of the third amended complaint dated April 2, 2005 [doc. # 81] on behalf of defendant Grantland. Conclusion Defendants' Motion for Extension of Time [doc. # 142] is GRANTED nunc pro tunc. Because the date for filing responses has passed, the Court directs defendants to file responses to motions ## 110-112, 118-121, 123-135 and 139 on or before April 15, 2006. Plaintiff's Motion for Default [doc. # 137] as to defendant Grantland is DENIED. On or before April 15, 2006, Attorney Radshaw is directed to file a notice indicating whether he represents defendant Grantland, intends to file an appearance on his behalf and will agree to accept service of the third amended complaint dated April 2, 2005 [doc. # 81] on behalf of defendant Grantland. SO ORDERED in New Haven, Connecticut, this 3rd of April, 2006. /s/ Joan G. Margolis United States Magistrate Judge

Attorney Radshaw has filed an appearance for defendants Town of Branford, Patrick O'Malley and David Atkinson.

1