CLOSED,EFILE,PRISSCAN,PROSE,SDV
`U.S. District Court
`District of Connecticut (New Haven)
`CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:24−cv−00129−VAB
`
`Hernaiz v. Wagner et al
`Assigned to: Judge Victor A. Bolden
`Referred to: Judge S. Dave Vatti
`Cause: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
`
`Plaintiff
`Esteban Hernaiz
`
`V.
`Defendant
`Wagner
`(Individual and Official Capacity, SGT
`Meriden Police)
`
`Defendant
`Rosado
`(Individual and Official Capacity, Chief
`of Police, Meriden)
`
`Defendant
`McKenna
`(Individual and Official Capacity, Internl
`Affairs Detective)
`
`Date Filed: 02/01/2024
`Date Terminated: 01/08/2025
`Jury Demand: Both
`Nature of Suit: 550 Prisoner: Civil Rights
`Jurisdiction: Federal Question
`
`represented by Esteban Hernaiz
`#267849
`MACDOUGALL−WALKER
`CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
`1153 East Street South
`Suffield, CT 06080
`PRO SE
`
`represented by Thomas R. Gerarde
`Howd & Ludorf, LLC
`100 Great Meadow Road
`Ste 201
`Wethersfield, CT 06109
`860−249−1361
`Fax: 860−249−7665
`Email: tgerarde@hl−law.com
`LEAD ATTORNEY
`ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
`
`Kristan M. Jakiela
`Howd & Ludorf, LLC
`100 Great Meadow Road
`Ste 201
`Wethersfield, CT 06109
`203−927−4422
`Email: kjakiela@hl−law.com
`ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
`
`represented by Thomas R. Gerarde
`(See above for address)
`LEAD ATTORNEY
`ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
`
`Kristan M. Jakiela
`(See above for address)
`ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
`
`represented by Thomas R. Gerarde
`(See above for address)
`LEAD ATTORNEY
`ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
`
`Kristan M. Jakiela
`(See above for address)
`
`

`

`Defendant
`Boothroyd
`(Individual and Official Capacity,
`Internal Affairs)
`
`Defendant
`McKay
`(Individual and Official Capacity,
`Internal Affairs)
`
`Defendant
`Scully
`(Individual and Official Capacity,
`Internal Affairs)
`
`ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
`
`represented by Thomas R. Gerarde
`(See above for address)
`LEAD ATTORNEY
`ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
`
`Kristan M. Jakiela
`(See above for address)
`ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
`
`represented by Thomas R. Gerarde
`(See above for address)
`LEAD ATTORNEY
`ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
`
`Kristan M. Jakiela
`(See above for address)
`ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
`
`represented by Thomas R. Gerarde
`(See above for address)
`LEAD ATTORNEY
`ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
`
`Kristan M. Jakiela
`(See above for address)
`ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
`
`Date Filed
`
`# Docket Text
`
`02/01/2024
`
`02/01/2024
`
`02/01/2024
`
`1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL by (Individual and Official Capacity, Internal Affairs)
`McKay, (Individual and Official Capacity, Internal Affairs Detective, Meriden)
`McKenna, (Individual & Official Capacity, Chief of Police, Meriden) Rosado,
`(Individual & Official Capacity, Internal Affairs) Scully, (Individual and Official
`Capacity, SGT Meriden Police) Wagner, (Individual and Official Capacity, Internal
`Affairs) Boothroyd from New Haven at Meriden Superior Court, case number
`NNI−CV24−5016805−S. Filing fee $ 405 receipt number ACTDC−7634127, filed by
`(Individual and Official Capacity, Internal Affairs) McKay, (Individual and Official
`Capacity, Internal Affairs Detective, Meriden) McKenna, (Individual & Official
`Capacity, Chief of Police, Meriden) Rosado, (Individual & Official Capacity, Internal
`Affairs) Scully, (Individual and Official Capacity, SGT Meriden Police) Wagner,
`(Individual and Official Capacity, Internal Affairs) Boothroyd. (Attachments: # 1
`Exhibit A)(Gerarde, Thomas) (Entered: 02/01/2024)
`
`2 NOTICE of Appearance by Thomas R. Gerarde on behalf of (Individual & Official
`Capacity, Chief of Police, Meriden) Rosado, (Individual & Official Capacity, Internal
`Affairs) Scully, (Individual and Official Capacity, Internal Affairs Detective, Meriden)
`McKenna, (Individual and Official Capacity, Internal Affairs) Boothroyd, (Individual
`and Official Capacity, Internal Affairs) McKay, (Individual and Official Capacity,
`SGT Meriden Police) Wagner (Gerarde, Thomas) (Entered: 02/01/2024)
`
`3 NOTICE of Appearance by Kristan M. Jakiela on behalf of (Individual & Official
`Capacity, Chief of Police, Meriden) Rosado, (Individual & Official Capacity, Internal
`Affairs) Scully, (Individual and Official Capacity, Internal Affairs Detective, Meriden)
`McKenna, (Individual and Official Capacity, Internal Affairs) Boothroyd, (Individual
`and Official Capacity, Internal Affairs) McKay, (Individual and Official Capacity,
`SGT Meriden Police) Wagner (Jakiela, Kristan) (Entered: 02/01/2024)
`
`

`

`02/01/2024
`
`02/01/2024
`
`02/01/2024
`
`02/01/2024
`
`02/01/2024
`
`02/01/2024
`
`02/01/2024
`
`02/01/2024
`
`02/01/2024
`
`02/01/2024
`
`02/01/2024
`
`02/01/2024
`
`4 Notice: Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1, a disclosure statement must
`be filed with a party's first appearance, pleading, petition, motion, response, or other
`request addressed to the Court and must be supplemented if any required information
`changes during the case.
`Signed by Clerk on 2/1/2024.(Maturo, F.) (Entered: 02/01/2024)
`
`5 NOTICE by Boothroyd, McKay, McKenna, Rosado, Scully, Wagner re 1 Notice of
`Removal,,, (Notice of Pending Motions) (Jakiela, Kristan) (Entered: 02/01/2024)
`
`6 DEMAND for Trial by Jury by Boothroyd, McKay, McKenna, Rosado, Scully,
`Wagner. (Jakiela, Kristan) (Entered: 02/01/2024)
`
`7 NOTICE by Boothroyd, McKay, McKenna, Rosado, Scully, Wagner re 1 Notice of
`Removal,,, (Compliance With Standing Order in Removed Cases) (Jakiela, Kristan)
`(Entered: 02/01/2024)
`
`Judge Victor A. Bolden and Judge S. Dave Vatti added. (Freberg, B) (Entered:
`02/01/2024)
`
`8 NOTICE by Boothroyd, McKay, McKenna, Rosado, Scully, Wagner re 1 Notice of
`Removal,,, (Compliance with Standing Order Per Local Rule 5(B)) (Jakiela, Kristan)
`(Entered: 02/01/2024)
`
`9 NOTICE by Boothroyd, McKay, McKenna, Rosado, Scully, Wagner re 1 Notice of
`Removal,,, (Certificate of Filing and Notice of Removal) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit
`Notice of Filing Notice of Removal (Superior Court))(Jakiela, Kristan) (Entered:
`02/01/2024)
`
`10 Order on Pretrial Deadlines: Amended Pleadings due by 4/1/2024, Discovery due by
`8/2/2024, Dispositive Motions due by 9/6/2024.
`Signed by Clerk on 2/1/2024.(Imbriani, Susan) (Entered: 02/01/2024)
`
`11 ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER FOR COUNSEL − PLEASE ENSURE
`COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER
`Signed by Judge Victor A. Bolden on 2/1/2024.(Imbriani, Susan) (Entered:
`02/01/2024)
`
`12 Standing Protective Order
`Signed by Judge Victor A. Bolden on 2/1/2024.(Imbriani, Susan) (Entered:
`02/01/2024)
`
`13 Notice of Option to Consent to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction. (Imbriani, Susan)
`(Entered: 02/01/2024)
`
`14 NOTICE TO COUNSEL/SELF−REPRESENTED PARTIES : Counsel or
`self−represented parties initiating or removing this action are responsible for serving
`all parties with attached documents and copies of 11 Electronic Filing Order, 8 Notice
`(Other) filed by Rosado, Scully, McKenna, Wagner, McKay, Boothroyd, 7 Notice
`(Other) filed by Rosado, Scully, McKenna, Wagner, McKay, Boothroyd, 4 Notice re:
`Disclosure Statement, 2 Notice of Appearance, filed by Rosado, Scully, McKenna,
`Wagner, McKay, Boothroyd, 9 Notice (Other) filed by Rosado, Scully, McKenna,
`Wagner, McKay, Boothroyd, 6 Jury Demand filed by Rosado, Scully, McKenna,
`Wagner, McKay, Boothroyd, 12 Standing Protective Order, 13 Notice of Option to
`Consent to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction, 3 Notice of Appearance, filed by Rosado,
`Scully, McKenna, Wagner, McKay, Boothroyd, 5 Notice (Other) filed by Rosado,
`Scully, McKenna, Wagner, McKay, Boothroyd, 10 Order on Pretrial Deadlines, 1
`Notice of Removal,,, filed by Rosado, Scully, McKenna, Wagner, McKay, Boothroyd
`Signed by Clerk on 2/1/2024. (Attachments: # 1 Standing Order on Removed
`Cases)(Imbriani, Susan) (Entered: 02/01/2024)
`
`02/13/2024
`
`02/14/2024
`
`15 MOTION for Extension of Time until March 8, 2024 to file a responsive pleading 1
`Notice of Removal,,, by Boothroyd, McKay, McKenna, Rosado, Scully, Wagner.
`(Jakiela, Kristan) (Entered: 02/13/2024)
`16 ORDER granting 15 Motion for Extension of Time. The Court GRANTS Defendants'
`motion for extension of time until March 8, 2024, to file a response to Plaintiff's
`Complaint.
`
`

`

`Signed by Judge Victor A. Bolden on 2/14/2024. (Thompson, M.) (Entered:
`02/14/2024)
`
`03/04/2024
`
`03/04/2024
`
`03/06/2024
`
`17 MOTION for Extension of Time until April 3, 2024 (to answer, object or otherwise
`respond to the plaintiff's Interrogatories and Requests for Production) by Boothroyd,
`McKay, McKenna, Rosado, Scully, Wagner. (Jakiela, Kristan) (Entered: 03/04/2024)
`
`18 REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting. (Jakiela, Kristan) (Entered: 03/04/2024)
`19 ORDER granting 17 Motion for Extension of Time. The Court GRANTS Defendants'
`motion for extension of time until April 3, 2024, to answer, object, or otherwise
`respond to the plaintiff's interrogatories and requests for production.
`
`Signed by Judge Victor A. Bolden on 3/6/2024. (Thompson, M.) (Entered:
`03/06/2024)
`
`03/08/2024
`
`03/08/2024
`
`20 MOTION to Dismiss by Boothroyd, McKay, McKenna, Rosado, Scully,
`Wagner.Responses due by 3/29/2024 (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support of
`Motion to Dismiss)(Jakiela, Kristan) (Entered: 03/08/2024)
`
`21 NOTICE by Boothroyd, McKay, McKenna, Rosado, Scully, Wagner re 20 MOTION
`to Dismiss Notice to Self−Represented Litigant Concerning Motion to Dismiss (as
`Required by Local Rule 12(a) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Attachments to
`notice)(Jakiela, Kristan) (Entered: 03/08/2024)
`
`03/14/2024
`
`22 SCHEDULING ORDER: The Court adopts the following schedule for pre−trial
`deadlines based on the parties' Rule 26(f) Report, the Court's preferences with respect
`to scheduling, and the Court's current calendar:
`
`− Damages analysis due by September 6, 2024.
`− Designation of expert witnesses due by September 6, 2024 (Plaintiff).
`− Depositions of expert witnesses shall be completed by October 11, 2024 (Plaintiff).
`− Designation of expert witnesses due by November 15, 2024 (Defendant).
`− Depositions of expert witnesses shall be completed by December 20, 2024
`(Defendant).
`− Depositions of fact witnesses shall be completed by February 7, 2025.
`− All discovery shall close by February 7, 2025.
`− If, after the close of discovery, the parties wish to meet with a Magistrate Judge to
`discuss settlement, the parties may jointly file such a request by February 13, 2025.
`− Dispositive motions due by March 7, 2025.
`− Responses to dispositive motions due by April 11, 2025.
`− Joint trial memorandum is due by May 16, 2025, or thirty (30) days after the Court
`rules on any dispositive motions.
`− Trial ready date is June 20, 2025, or thirty (30) days after the joint trial
`memorandum is filed.
`
`Signed by Judge Victor A. Bolden on 3/14/2023. (Thompson, M.) (Entered:
`03/14/2024)
`
`04/03/2024
`
`04/05/2024
`
`24 MOTION to Stay Discovery by Boothroyd, McKay, McKenna, Rosado, Scully,
`Wagner.Responses due by 4/24/2024 (Jakiela, Kristan) (Entered: 04/03/2024)
`25 ORDER granting 24 Motion to Stay. The Court GRANTS Defendants' motion to stay
`discovery pending the Court's ruling on their motion to dismiss. See Dietz v. Bouldin,
`579 U.S. 40, 47 (2016) ("[D]istrict courts have the inherent authority to manage their
`dockets and courtrooms with a view toward the efficient and expedient resolution of
`cases.").
`
`Signed by Judge Victor A. Bolden on 4/5/2024. (Thompson, M.) (Entered:
`04/05/2024)
`
`04/05/2024
`
`04/05/2024
`
`26 REPLY to Response to 20 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Boothroyd, McKay,
`McKenna, Rosado, Scully, Wagner. (Jakiela, Kristan) (Entered: 04/05/2024)
`
`27 MOTION to Seal Pro Se Plaintiff's Notice #23 by Boothroyd, McKay, McKenna,
`Rosado, Scully, Wagner. (Jakiela, Kristan) (Entered: 04/05/2024)
`
`

`

`04/11/2024
`
`28 EXHIBITS by Esteban Hernaiz. (Imbriani, S) (Entered: 04/11/2024)
`
`04/18/2024
`
`29 EXHIBIT by Esteban Hernaiz. (Barry, L.) (Entered: 04/18/2024)
`
`04/23/2024
`
`04/24/2024
`
`31 OBJECTION re 20 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Esteban Hernaiz. (Barry, L.)
`(Entered: 04/24/2024)
`
`30 ORDER granting 27 Motion to Seal. The Court finds that good cause exists to seal this
`document and that sealing is supported by clear and compelling reasons and is
`narrowly tailored to serve those reasons. See D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 5(e); see also
`Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 120 (2d Cir. 2006) ("[T]he
`presumption of access" to judicial documents may be overcome by "countervailing
`factors includ[ing]...the privacy interests of those resisting disclosure." (quoting United
`States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1048 (2d Cir. 1995))).
`
`Signed by Judge Victor A. Bolden on 4/24/2024. (Thompson, M.) (Entered:
`04/24/2024)
`
`04/25/2024
`
`04/25/2024
`
`32 Emergency MOTION for Permanent Injunction by Boothroyd, McKay, McKenna,
`Rosado, Scully, Wagner.Responses due by 5/16/2024 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit
`A)(Jakiela, Kristan) (Entered: 04/25/2024)
`
`33 MOTION to Strike 28 Exhibit, 31 Objection, 29 Exhibit (Motion to Strike Plaintiff's
`Sur−Replies) by Boothroyd, McKay, McKenna, Rosado, Scully, Wagner.Responses
`due by 5/16/2024 (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support)(Jakiela, Kristan)
`(Entered: 04/25/2024)
`
`06/17/2024
`
`35 ORDER denying 33 Motion to Strike.
`
`The Court DENIES without prejudice Defendants' motion to strike Plaintiff's
`sur−replies. Defendants assert that Mr. Hernaiz has filed sur−replies, ECF Nos. 28, 29,
`and 31, without obtaining permission from the Court as required under Local Rule
`7(d). In light of the special solicitude afforded to a pro se prisoner Plaintiff, see Tracy
`v. Freshwater, 623 F.3d 90, 101 (2d Cir. 2010) ("It is well established that a court is
`ordinarily obligated to afford a special solicitude to pro se litigants."), the Court
`excuses Mr. Hernaiz's procedural failure to seek permission from the Court before
`filing his replies to the motion to dismiss. In the future, Mr. Hernaiz should request the
`Court's permission before filing any further reply to the motion to dismiss.
`
`Signed by Judge Victor A. Bolden on 6/17/2024. (Thompson, M.) (Entered:
`06/17/2024)
`
`08/06/2024
`
`09/06/2024
`
`36 NOTICE of Change of Address by Esteban Hernaiz (Corriette, M.) (Entered:
`08/07/2024)
`
`37 ORDER DENYING without prejudice Defendants' 32 Motion for Permanent
`Injunction.
`
`Defendants counsel requests injunctive relief to enjoin Plaintiff from further vexatious
`litigation against [her] in connection with the[] representation of defendants in this
`matter. ECF No. 32 at 1. Specifically, Defendants counsel asserts that Plaintiff
`threatened to commence litigation and fil[e] a complaint against her in connection with
`Defendants motion to dismiss. Id. at 2. Mr. Hernaiz allegedly complained that the
`motion to dismiss is biased, racist, and discriminatory, contains defamatory statements,
`and referred to him as a serial litigant. Defendants counsel claims that Mr. Hernaizs
`threat of litigation is harassing and an abuse of the judicial process.
`
`Under its inherent power, a court may impose sanctions against a party for act[ing] in
`bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive reasons. Chambers v. NASCO, Inc.,
`501 U.S. 32, 45−46 (1991) (citations omitted). The inherent power to sanction bad
`faith litigation abuse stems from the very nature of courts and their need to be able to
`manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of
`cases. United States v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, 948 F.2d 1338, 1345 (2d Cir. 1991)
`(citations omitted).
`
`Defendants counsel suggests that the Court should take the drastic measure of issuing a
`filing injunction to prevent Plaintiff from filing further legal actions without first
`
`

`

`obtaining leave of the Court. In determining whether to grant a filing injunction, courts
`must consider: (1) the litigant's history of litigation and whether it entailed vexatious,
`harassing, or duplicative lawsuits; (2) whether the litigant has an objective good faith
`expectation of prevailing; (3) whether the litigant has counsel; (4) whether the litigant
`has caused needless expense to other parties or an unnecessary burden on the courts
`and their personnel; and (5) whether other sanctions may suffice to protect the courts
`and other parties. Eliahu v. Jewish Agency for Israel, 919 F.3d 709, 714 (2d Cir. 2019)
`(citing Iwachiw v. N.Y. State Dep't of Motor Vehicles, 396 F.3d 525, 528 (2d Cir.
`2005)) (per curiam).
`
`Mr. Hernaiz, as a pro se litigant, is entitled to solicitude and held to a more lenient
`standard than an attorney. See Tracy v. Freshwater, 623 F.3d 90, 101 (2d Cir. 2010);
`Cooksey v. Digital, No. 14−CV−7146 (JGK), 2016 WL 5108199, at *8 (S.D.N.Y.
`Sept. 20, 2016). Nonetheless, even a pro se litigant such as Mr. Hernaiz may not abuse
`the process of the Court or use it as a weapon of harassment[.] See Harry v.
`Lagomarsine, 2019 WL 1177718, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. March 13, 2019); see also Leibovitz
`v. City of N.Y., 2019 WL 4307305, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 27, 2019) (pro se litigants
`are not entitled to any latitude when it comes to threatening and inappropriate
`conduct.).
`
`Upon review of the present record, Defendants counsel request for a filing injunction
`is not warranted. Although, as Defendants counsel states, Plaintiff has filed at least six
`cases in state court, there is no indication that these cases were vexatious or harassing.
`Nor do his state court filings interfere with this Courts management of this litigation or
`its judicial function. In fact, after review of Mr. Hernaizs case filings in federal court,
`the Court cannot discern any inference that Mr. Hernaiz is filing federal cases in bad
`faith. Indeed, Plaintiff recently filed four lawsuits in this Court. One of his federal
`cases is proceeding on a First Amendment claim and another was dismissed after an
`initial review. Two other cases appear to have been misfiled and were dismissed as
`duplicates of this case that was removed from state court.
`
`Nor do Mr. Hernaizs complaints about the motion to dismiss or asserted intention to
`file litigation against Defendants counsel suggest any imminent harm to Defendants
`counsel. To the extent that Mr. Hernaiz files a lawsuit against Defendants counsel, she
`may file a motion to dismiss and seek sanctions against him for vexatious litigation, if
`appropriate. Thus, as there is no showing of egregious bad faith or vexatious litigation
`abuse, the Court must deny the request for a filing injunction. See Richardson
`Greenshields Sec., Inc. v. Mui−Hin Lau, 825 F.2d 647, 652 (2d Cir. 1987) (explaining
`that [a]bsent extraordinary circumstances, such as a demonstrated history of frivolous
`and vexatious litigation, a court has no power to prevent parties from filing legal
`documents authorized by the federal rules).
`
`Signed by Judge Victor A. Bolden on 9/6/2024. (McCowan, D) (Entered: 09/06/2024)
`
`09/16/2024
`
`09/18/2024
`
`38 MOTION for Relief by Esteban Hernaiz.(Murphy, T) (Entered: 09/18/2024)
`39 ORDER denying 38 Motion as MOOT, in light of the Court's previous order, ECF
`No. 37 , addressing related issues.
`
`Signed by Judge Victor A. Bolden on 9/18/2024. (McCowan, D) (Entered:
`09/18/2024)
`
`10/11/2024
`
`40 ORDER granting 20 Motion to Dismiss.
`
`For the reasons listed in the attached Initial Review Order and Ruling, the Complaint is
`DISMISSED, and Defendants' motion to dismiss, ECF No. 20 is GRANTED as to
`Mr. Hernaiz's federal claims.
`
`The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Hernaiz's state law
`claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).
`
`To the extent deficiencies identified in this Ruling and Order can be remedied, Mr.
`Hernaiz may file an Amended Complaint by November 15, 2024. Any Amended
`Complaint, if filed, will completely replace the Complaint, and the Court will not
`consider any allegations made in the original Complaint in evaluating any Amended
`
`

`

`Complaint. If Mr. Hernaiz does not file an Amended Complaint by November 15,
`2024, the Court will close this case and remand his state law claims to the Connecticut
`Superior Court for the Judicial District of Meriden.
`
`Signed by Judge Victor A. Bolden on 10/11/2024. (McCowan, D) (Entered:
`10/11/2024)
`
`10/18/2024
`
`41 RESPONSE re 40 Order on Motion to Dismiss filed by Esteban Hernaiz. (Freberg, B)
`(Entered: 10/18/2024)
`
`11/04/2024
`
`42 EXHIBITS by Esteban Hernaiz. (Freberg, B) (Entered: 11/04/2024)
`
`11/08/2024
`
`43 ORDER.
`
`The Court construes Mr. Hernaiz's response, ECF No. 41 as a motion for
`reconsideration. But the standard for reconsideration is strict. Shrader v. CSX Transp.,
`Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995). "[R]econsideration will generally be denied
`unless the moving party can point to controlling decisions or data that the court
`overlooked−−matters, in other words, that might reasonably be expected to alter the
`conclusion reached by the court." Shrader, 70 F.3d at 257; see also Virgin Atl.
`Airways, Ltd. v. Nat'l Mediation Bd., 956 F.2d 1245, 1255 (2d Cir. 1992) ("where
`litigants have once battled for the court's decision, they should neither be required, nor
`without good reason permitted, to battle for it again") (citations omitted).
`
`While Mr. Hernaiz apparently disagrees with the Court's decision on the motion to
`dismiss, mere disagreement does not satisfy this strict standard. To the extent
`appropriate, Mr. Hernaiz may still file an Amended Complaint by November 22,
`2024.
`
`Signed by Judge Victor A. Bolden on 11/8/2024.(McCowan, D) (Entered: 11/08/2024)
`
`11/22/2024
`
`44 MOTION for Extension of Time by Esteban Hernaiz. (Chartier, A.) (Entered:
`11/22/2024)
`
`11/25/2024
`
`45 ORDER granting 44 Motion for Extension of Time.
`
`The Court GRANTS Mr. Hernaiz's motion for an extension of time to file an amended
`complaint until December 20, 2024.
`
`Signed by Judge Victor A. Bolden on 11/25/2024. (McCowan, D) (Entered:
`11/25/2024)
`
`11/26/2024
`
`46 MOTION for Judgment by Esteban Hernaiz.Responses due by 12/17/2024 (Freberg,
`B) (Entered: 11/26/2024)
`
`12/05/2024
`
`47 NOTICE by Esteban Hernaiz (Freberg, B) (Entered: 12/05/2024)
`
`12/05/2024
`
`48 OBJECTION re 44 MOTION for Extension of Time, 46 MOTION for Judgment
`(Objection to Motion for Sanctions and Motion for Costs) filed by Wagner, Rosado,
`McKenna, Boothroyd, McKay, Scully. (Jakiela, Kristan) (Entered: 12/05/2024)
`
`12/16/2024
`
`49 MOTION for Order by Esteban Hernaiz. (Freberg, B) (Entered: 12/16/2024)
`
`12/17/2024
`
`50 OBJECTION filed by Esteban Hernaiz. (Freberg, B) (Entered: 12/18/2024)
`
`12/19/2024
`
`51 NOTICE by Esteban Hernaiz (Freberg, B) (Entered: 12/20/2024)
`
`01/08/2025
`
`52 ORDER REMANDING CASE TO STATE COURT.
`
`On October 11, 2024, in the Court's Initial Review Order, the Court dismissed Mr.
`Hernaiz's Complaint, and ordered Mr. Hernaiz to file an Amended Complaint by
`November 15, 2024, or else the Court would "close this case and remand his state law
`claims to the Connecticut Superior Court for the Judicial District of Meriden." See
`Initial Review Order, ECF No. 40 . On November 8, 2024, in an order denying Mr.
`Hernaiz's motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of his Complaint, the Court
`extended the deadline to file an Amended Complaint until November 22, 2024. See
`Order, ECF No. 43 . On November 22, 2024, Mr. Hernaiz requested additional time to
`file his Amended Complaint. See Motion for Extension of Time, ECF No. 45 . On
`
`

`

`November 25, 2024, the Court granted Mr. Hernaiz's motion for extension of time and
`finally gave him until December 20, 2024, to file his amended complaint. See Order,
`ECF No. 45 .
`
`Given that this deadline is now passed, the Court will uphold its Initial Review Order
`and close out this case and remand it to Connecticut Superior Court for the Judicial
`District of Meriden because the Court lacks jurisdiction since Mr. Hernaiz's federal
`claims are dismissed and the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over
`the remaining state law claims. See ECF No. 40 ("For the reasons listed in the attached
`Initial Review Order and Ruling... Defendants' motion to dismiss... is GRANTED as to
`Mr. Hernaiz's federal claims. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction
`over Mr. Hernaiz's state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3)."); United Food &
`Commercial Workers Union Local 919 v. Centermark Props. Meriden Square, Inc., 30
`F.3d 298, 301 (2d Cir. 1994) ("Where jurisdiction is lacking... dismissal is
`mandatory.").
`
`Accordingly, this case is remanded back to the Superior Court, Judicial District of
`Meriden. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close this case.
`
`Signed by Judge Victor A. Bolden on 1/8/2025.(McCowan, D) (Entered: 01/08/2025)
`
`01/08/2025
`
`53 ORDER denying as moot 46 Motion for Judgment; denying as moot 49 Motion for
`Order.
`
`01/08/2025
`
`Given this case's remand back to the Superior Court, Judicial District of Meriden, ECF
`No. 52 , Mr. Hernaiz's pending motions, ECF Nos. 46 & 49 are DENIED AS MOOT.
`
`Signed by Judge Victor A. Bolden on 1/8/2025. (McCowan, D) (Entered: 01/08/2025)
`
`JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS SURVEY − FOR COUNSEL ONLY: The following link
`to the confidential survey requires you to log into CM/ECF for SECURITY purposes.
`Once in CM/ECF you will be prompted for the case number. Although you are
`receiving this survey through CM/ECF, it is hosted on an independent website called
`SurveyMonkey. Once in SurveyMonkey, the survey is located in a secure account. The
`survey is not docketed and it is not sent directly to the judge. To ensure anonymity,
`completed surveys are held up to 90 days before they are sent to the judge for review.
`We hope you will take this opportunity to participate, please click on this link:
`
`https://ecf.ctd.uscourts.gov/cgi−bin/Dispatch.pl?survey
`(Murphy, T) (Entered: 01/16/2025)
`
`01/24/2025
`
`54 Case remanded to State Court Judicial District of Meriden. (Murphy, T) (Entered:
`01/24/2025)
`
`

`

`Case 3:24-cv-00129-VAB Document 1 Filed 02/01/24 Page 1 of 5
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
`
`
`
`
`
`ESTEBAN HERNAIZ
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY,
`SGT MERIDEN POLICE) WAGNER,
`
`(INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICAL CAPACITY,
`CHIEF OF POLICE, MERIDEN) ROSADO,
`(INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY,
`INTERNL AFFAIRS DETECTIVE,
`
`MERIDEN) MCKENNA, (INDIVIDUAL AND
`OFFICIAL CAPACITY, INTERNAL
`
`AFFAIRS) BOOTHROYD, (INDIVIDUAL
`AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY, INTERNAL
`AFFAIRS) MCKAY, (INDIVIDUAL AND
`OFFICIAL CAPACITY, INTERNAL
`
`AFFAIRS) SCULLY
`
`
`
`
`
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`
`NO.:
`
`FEBRUARY 1, 2024
`
`NOTICE OF REMOVAL
`
`
`
`To the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut:
`
`Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441, 1443 and 1446, the undersigned defendants,
`
`(Individual and Official Capacity, Sgt Meriden Police) Wagner, (Individual and
`
`Official Capacity, Chief of Police, Meriden) Rosado, (Individual and Official
`
`Capacity, Internal Affairs Detective, Meriden) McKenna, (Individual and Official
`
`Capacity, Internal Affairs) Boothroyd, (Individual and Official Capacity, Internal
`
`Affairs) McKay, and (Individual and Official Capacity, Internal Affairs) Scully,
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:24-cv-00129-VAB Document 1 Filed 02/01/24 Page 2 of 5
`
`
`
`hereby give notice that they have removed this action from the Superior Court of
`
`Connecticut, Judicial District of Hartford at Hartford, for the following reasons:
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff commenced the instant action against the defendants by service
`
`of a Summons and Complaint. The plaintiff served a copy of the Summons and
`
`Complaint upon the undersigned defendants on January 10, 2024.
`
`2.
`
`The action was returnable in the Superior Court for the Judicial District of
`
`Meriden at Meriden on January 23, 2024.
`
`3.
`
`The above-described action is a civil action and is one which may be
`
`removed to the Court by the undersigned defendants pursuant to the provisions of
`
`Title 28, United States Code §§ 1441, 1331, and 1343.
`
`4.
`
`The above-described action is a civil action and is one which may be
`
`removed to the Court by petitioners, defendants therein, pursuant to the provisions of
`
`Title 28, United States Code § 1331, as the Complaint asserts a federal question and
`
`the deprivation of constitutionally protected civil rights.
`
`5.
`
`The pro se plaintiff is incarcerated in the State of Connecticut.
`
`Undersigned defendants, (Individual and Official Capacity, Sgt Meriden Police)
`
`Wagner, (Individual and Official Capacity, Chief of Police, Meriden) Rosado,
`
`(Individual and Official Capacity, Internal Affairs Detective, Meriden) McKenna,
`
`(Individual and Official Capacity, Internal Affairs) Boothroyd, (Individual and Official
`
`Capacity, Internal Affairs) McKay, and (Individual and Official Capacity, Internal
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 3:24-cv-00129-VAB Document 1 Filed 02/01/24 Page 3 of 5
`
`
`
`Affairs) Scully, are citizens residing in the State of Connecticut and are employees of
`
`the City of Meriden.
`
`6.
`
`Specifically, the Complaint is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and
`
`42 U.S.C. § 1985 and alleges a deprivation of constitutionally protected civil rights.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`The undersigned defendants deny the plaintiff’s material allegations.
`
`Accordingly, this Court has original jurisdiction of this action under 28
`
`U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332, and supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
`
`9.
`
`The action may be removed to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441
`
`and 1446.
`
`10. Attached hereto as Exhibit A, in compliance with 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a),
`
`are complete and accurate copies of the process and pleadings received by the
`
`defendants.
`
`WHEREFORE, the petitioners pray that the above action now pending in the
`
`Superior Court of Meriden at Meriden be removed therefrom to this Court.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:24-cv-00129-VAB Document 1 Filed 02/01/24 Page 4 of 5
`
`DEFENDANTS,
`(INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY,
`SGT MERIDEN POLICE) WAGNER,
`(INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICAL CAPACITY,
`CHIEF OF POLICE, MERIDEN)
`ROSADO, (INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL
`CAPACITY, INTERNAL AFFAIRS
`DETECTIVE, MERIDEN) MCKENNA,
`(INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY,
`INTERNAL AFFAIRS) BOOTHROYD,
`(INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY,
`INTERNAL AFFAIRS) MCKAY,
`(INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY,
`INTERNAL AFFAIRS) SCULLY
`
`
`
`By /s/ Thomas R. Gerarde
`Thomas R. Gerarde
`ct05640
`Kristan M. Jakiela
`ct31170
`Howd & Ludorf, LLC
`100 Great Meadow Road, Suite 201
`Wethersfield, CT 06109
`Ph: (860) 249-1361
`Fax: (860) 249-7665
`E-mail: tgerarde@hl-law.com
`E-mail: kjakiela@hl-law.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 3:24-cv-00129-VAB Document 1 Filed 02/01/24 Page 5 of 5
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATION
`
`This is to certify that on February 1, 2024, a copy of the foregoing Notice of
`
`Removal was filed electronically and served by mail on anyone unable to accept
`electronic filing. Notice of this filing will be sent by e-mail to all parties by operation of
`the Court’s electronic filing system or by mail to anyone unable to accept electronic
`filing as indicated on the Notice of Electronic Filing. Parties may access this filing
`through the Court’s CM/ECF System.
`
`Esteban Hernaiz, Inmate #267849
`New Haven Correctional Center
`245 Whalley Ave
`New Haven, CT 06511
`
`Emily Elizabeth Holland, Esq.
`Meriden Corporation Counsel
`142 East Main Street
`Meriden, CT 06450
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Thomas R. Gerarde
`Thomas R. Gerarde
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`From: Madison Beggs
`
`Case2aseteeev-00129:MABraese2pcuMmentdaxd203)eles02/0E/2 Pape‘Bot Dhei20244:15PM
`
`Fost
`
`nm Instructions are on page 2.
`
`SUMMONS- CIVIL
`JD-CV-1 Rev. 2:22
`C.G.8.-§§ 51-346, §1:347,51-349, $1-380, 52-453, 2-48, 52-259;
`P.B. §§-3-1through 3-21, 8:1, 10:13
`
`"|
`
`Forinformation on
`ADA accommodations,
`contact a court clerk or
`go-to: wivwjud.ctgov/ADA.
`
`: Gels
`+ Tye,
`tates
`Ff ened
`oagteSoho
`At Sas 4
`TATE OF GONNECTICUT
`Racke
`CSGRERIGR-‘COURT
`int Mire QSS7Widwjud.ct,gov
`ven
`
`
`
`["} Setect if amount, legal interest, or property in demand,not including interest and costs,is LESS. than$2,500. sn
`.
`bast GHtsif Gol
`$0.80
`Selectif amount, fegal interest, or property in demand, not including interest and costs, is.$2,500 orMORE.
`[_] Selectif claimingotherrelief in addition to,or in place of, money or damages.
`
`&
`TO: Any properofficer
`An.
`ByauthorityoftheState of Connecticut, you are hereby commanded to make due and fegal service ofthis summons and attached complaint.
`/ a ,
`Addressof court clerk (Number, street, fown and zipcade)
`
`
`Telephone numberof clerk
`aly We Mag or aeentliin cytaly7
`“et
`°
`
`(293 258 -€E
`
`
`
`GA.
`[Al Judicial District
`At (City/Town)
`
`_[] HousingSession
`fe ao
`[-] Nurmiber:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`{
`
`)
`
`-
`
`
`
`
`te“Telephone fambar
`
`The attorney or jaw firm appearing for the sient ortheSanatie
`{-
`Email address for delivery of papers-underSection 10-13 of the
`
`Corinecticut Practice Boak (if agreed)
`self-represented, agrees to accept papers (service) electronically
`
`_in this caseunder Section 10-13 of the Conhecticut Practice Book. C] Yes C] No
`
`
`Name (Last, First, Middle Initial) and address ofeach party (Number; street; P.O. Box; town;stato, zip; country,ifnot USA)
`
`
`Name: HOenaiz ; Es Jeb
`First
`P-01
`
`
`
`plaintiff|Address: GUS" wwhalloay dv@, My Haves, cf ubsll
`
`
`
`
`
`Additional|Name: 7
`
`
`pl