Case 3:07-cv-01422-HBF Document 34 Filed 02/06/09 Page 1 of 6
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
`
`PRISONER CASE NO.
`3:07-cv-1422 (JCH)
`
`FEBRUARY 6, 2009
`
`::
`
`:
`:
` :
`
`CARNELL HUNNICUTT
`
`v.
`
`THERESA LANTZ, et al.
`
`RULING ON PENDING MOTIONS
`
`Pending before the court are Motions to Amend, to Compel and for Default filed by
`
`plaintiff and Motions for Extension of Time filed by defendants. The court addresses the
`
`defendants’ motions first.
`
`I.
`
` MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME [Doc. Nos. 24, 28]
`
`The defendants seek an extension of time until January 4, 2009, to respond to
`
`plaintiff’s to Requests for Admission and Interrogatories. The motion is granted.
`
`Plaintiff has filed a document entitled “Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for
`
`TRO and Preliminary Injunction.” As no motion for injunctive relief was filed, a deputy
`
`clerk docketed the document as a memorandum in support of the complaint. The court
`
`construes the memorandum [Doc. No. 25] as a motion for injunctive relief. Defendants’
`
`motion for extension of time to respond to plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief is granted.
`1
`
`II.
`
`MOTIONS TO COMPEL AND FOR EXTENSIONS OF TIME [Doc. Nos. 19, 26]
`
`Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to file a Motion to Reopen Judgment is
`
`denied as moot. It is clear from the motion that plaintiff intended to file it in another action,
`
`Case No. 3:05cv162 (RNC).
`
` This motion was incorrectly docketed as a motion for extension of time to respond to
`1
`the Complaint.
`
`1
`
`

`
`Case 3:07-cv-01422-HBF Document 34 Filed 02/06/09 Page 2 of 6
`
`Plaintiff moves to compel the defendants to respond to a Request for Production of
`
`Documents dated October 28, 2008. The request for production is deficient in that it is
`2
`
`not directed to a specific defendant, but rather to the defendants as a whole. See Rule
`
`34(a), Fed. R. Civ. P. (“A party may serve on any other party a request . . . to produce . . .
`
`any designated documents . . . . “) The motion to compel is denied without prejudice.
`
`Plaintiff is directed to address the request for production of documents to the defendant
`
`from whom he seeks documents, and serve the request on counsel for the defendants.
`
`Counsel for the defendants is directed to respond to that request within thirty days of
`
`receiving it.
`
` I II.
`
`MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME, TO AMEND, AND FOR DEFAULT
`[Doc. Nos. 10, 20, 22]
`
`Plaintiff filed this civil rights action pro se and in forma pauperis alleging that the
`
`defendants tampered with, censored and confiscated outgoing and incoming mail in
`
`violation of his rights under the First, Eighth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments. On May
`
`27, 2008, the court dismissed the claims of Copyright infringement as well as the claims
`
`for violations of the Eighth and Ninth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The court
`
`directed the plaintiff to file an amended complaint that included only his claims of
`
`interference with and confiscation of his incoming and outgoing mail in violation of the First
`
`and Fourteenth Amendments. The Amended Complaint was to be filed within twenty
`
` It is clear from a memorandum filed by plaintiff on January 12, 2009, that plaintiff is
`2
`under the impression that neither his request for injunctive relief nor his Motion to Compel was
`received by the court in a timely fashion. The docket sheet reflects that the motion to compel is
`dated December 10, 2008, was received by the court on December 12, 2008 and was docketed
`on December 15, 2008. The request for injunctive relief, [Doc. No. 25] is dated December 8,
`2008, was received by the court on December 9, 2008, and was docketed on December 9,
`2008.
`
`2
`
`

`
`Case 3:07-cv-01422-HBF Document 34 Filed 02/06/09 Page 3 of 6
`
`days of the court’s Order. In addition, the court informed the plaintiff that if he could
`
`establish both that he obtained a valid copyright for any of his manuscripts and that any
`
`defendant reproduced and distributed portions of that manuscript, he could file a motion
`
`for leave to amend accompanied by a proposed amended complaint.
`
`The plaintiff did not file an amended complaint asserting only the claims of
`
`interference with and confiscation of his incoming and outgoing mail as directed by the
`
`court. Instead, he filed a Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint to reassert his
`
`claim of copyright infringement as well as his claims of violations of the First, Eighth and
`
`Fourteenth Amendments due to mail tampering/confiscation. Defendants have filed an
`
`objection to the motion to amend. Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to file a reply to
`
`the defendants’ objection is granted. Plaintiff’s reply has been received and docketed by
`
`the Clerk.
`
`The allegations in the proposed amended complaint, dated June 2, 2008,
`
`essentially mirror the allegations in the Complaint except that the plaintiff has eliminated
`
`his Ninth Amendment claim and has added one paragraph pertaining to his claim of
`
`copyright infringement. In paragraph twenty-three of the proposed Amended Complaint,
`
`plaintiff asserts that prison staff at Northern had confiscated or copied his artwork in the
`
`past. In response, on July 10, 2006, plaintiff applied to the Copyright Office for a
`
`Certificate of Registration for his cartoons created in 2005. Plaintiff claims that prison
`3
`
`staff at Northern informed him that they have retained copies of his most recent artwork
`
`that they could only have obtained from defendants Donahue and Colon who work in the
`
` Plaintiff attaches the Certificate of Registration, effective July 19, 2006, to the
`3
`proposed Amended Complaint.
`
`3
`
`

`
`Case 3:07-cv-01422-HBF Document 34 Filed 02/06/09 Page 4 of 6
`
`prison mailroom.
`
`Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint could be construed to assert that the cartoon that he
`
`drew of a radio disk jockey on March 16, 2007, which was confiscated by defendant Colon
`
`on March 22, 2007, was copied or otherwise reproduced or distributed. See Compl. ¶ 17-
`
`19, 23. However, plaintiff has not alleged that he obtained a valid copyright for this piece
`
`of artwork or any of his more recent artwork; the Copyright Registration Certificate applies
`
`to cartoons created in 2005. Registering a Copyright is a prerequisite to filing a suit for
`
`copyright infringement. Accordingly, the plaintiff’s request for leave to amend to re-assert
`
`a claim of Copyright infringement as alleged in the proposed amended complaint is
`
`denied.
`
`Plaintiff is directed to file an amended complaint within twenty days of the date of
`
`this Order including only the claims that the defendants interfered with and confiscated his
`
`incoming and outgoing mail in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The
`
`amended complaint shall not include claims for deliberate indifference, violations of the
`
`Eighth or Ninth Amendments or for Copyright infringement. In view of this Order, the
`
`Motion for Default for failure to respond to the complaint is denied as moot.
`
`Defendants shall file their response to the Amended Complaint, either an answer
`
`or Motion to Dismiss, within (40) days from the date of this Order. If the defendants
`
`choose to file an answer, they shall admit or deny the allegations and respond to the
`
`cognizable claims recited above. They may also include any and all additional defenses
`
`permitted by the Federal Rules.
`
`Discovery, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 through 37, shall be
`
`completed within four months (120 days) from the date of this Order. Discovery requests
`
`4
`
`

`
`Case 3:07-cv-01422-HBF Document 34 Filed 02/06/09 Page 5 of 6
`
`need not be filed with the court.
`
`All motions for summary judgment shall be filed within five months (150 days)
`
`from the date of this Order.
`
`IV.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`Defendants’ Motion for Extension of Time [Doc. No. 24] to Respond to Requests
`
`for Admission and Interrogatories is GRANTED. Within ten days of the date of this
`
`Order, counsel for the defendants shall file a notice of compliance indicating the
`
`date on which he served the answers to the Requests for Admissions and
`
`Interrogatories on plaintiff.
`
`The court construes [Doc. No. 25] as a motion for injunctive relief. Defendants’
`
`Motion for Extension of Time [Doc. No. 28] to respond to plaintiff’s request for injunctive
`
`relief is GRANTED. Defendants shall file their response to the request within twenty
`
`days of the date of this Order. Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time [Doc. No. 20] to
`
`file a reply to the defendants’ objection to the motion to amend is GRANTED. The Motion
`
`for Default [Doc. No. 22] for failure to respond to the complaint and Motion for Extension
`
`of Time to file a motion to reopen judgment [Doc. No. 19] are DENIED. The Clerk is
`
`directed to docket a copy of the Motion for Extension of Time to file a motion to
`
`reopen in Case No. 3:05cv162 (RNC).
`
`Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint [Doc. No. 10] to reassert
`
`a claim of Copyright infringement is DENIED. Plaintiff is directed to file an amended
`
`complaint within twenty days of the date of this order including only the claims that the
`
`defendants interfered with and confiscated his incoming and outgoing mail in violation of
`
`the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The amended complaint shall not include claims
`
`5
`
`

`
`Case 3:07-cv-01422-HBF Document 34 Filed 02/06/09 Page 6 of 6
`
`for deliberate indifference, violations of the Eighth or Ninth Amendments or for Copyright
`
`infringement. Failure to timely file an amended complaint will result in dismissal of this
`
`action without further notice from the court.
`
`SO ORDERED.
`
`Dated at Bridgeport, Connecticut this 6th day of February, 2009.
`
` /s/ Janet C. Hall
`Janet C. Hall
`United States District Judge
`
`6