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

Case 3:01-cv-01107-CFD

Document 182

Filed 04/12/2005

Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

LLOYD GEORGE MORGAN, JR. v. GOVERNOR JOHN ROWLAND, et al.

: : : : :

PRISONER Case No. 3:01CV1107(CFD)(WIG)

RULING AND ORDER Pending are a motion for extension of time filed by defendants as well as two motions for entry of default and a motion for articulation filed by plaintiff. On March 1, 2004, defendants filed a motion to dismiss. January 2005, with the assistance of an attorney from Inmates' Legal Assistance Program, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. On February 25, 2005, the court denied defendants' In the ruling, the court indicated that In

motion to dismiss.

defendants' arguments could be better addressed in the context of a motion for summary judgment and afforded defendants forty-five days to file a motion. Plaintiff states that there is some

confusion in the language in the ruling and seeks clarification. Plaintiff's motion [doc. #180] is GRANTED. Because the

second amended complaint eliminates many claims and defendants, the court's intention is that defendants file a motion for summary judgment addressed to the second amended complaint. No

response is required from plaintiff until defendants file their motion. Defendants shall file their motion for summary judgment

Case 3:01-cv-01107-CFD

Document 182

Filed 04/12/2005

Page 2 of 2

on or before April 25, 2005. In light of this order, defendants' motion for extension of time to respond to the second amended complaint [doc. #178] and plaintiff's motions for entry of default [docs. ## 177, 181] are DENIED as moot. SO ORDERED this Bridgeport, Connecticut. 12th day of April, 2005, at

/s/ William I. Garfinkel WILLIAM I. GARFINKEL UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2