Rivera v. Town of New Fairfield

Background

Humberto Rivera, Jr., proceeding without a lawyer, brought this action against the Town of New Fairfield; New Fairfield Connecticut Police; First Selectman Patricia Del Monaco; Selectmen Khris Hall and Kim Hansen; Sgt. Adam Wagnblas; and PO/Troopers Stevenson, David Koonitsky, Jamie Olsowy, Jamie King, and David Tharas.

The court had previously ordered Rivera to file proof that Wagnblas and Stevenson were served by January 18, 2023, or to show good cause for failing to do so. Rivera did not file proof of service or a written explanation. No lawyer had appeared for either defendant.

The Town of New Fairfield, the New Fairfield Resident Trooper’s Office, Del Monaco, Hall, Hansen, and Koonitsky filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. King, Olsowy, and Tharas had not yet answered, filed a motion, or otherwise responded. Their lawyers did file a request to appear in the case. Rivera asked for permission to amend his complaint or for more time to oppose the motion to dismiss until all defendants responded.

Court’s Order

The court dismissed Rivera’s claims against Sgt. Adam Wagnblas and PO/Trooper Stevenson without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), which addresses timely service of defendants. The Clerk was directed to terminate them as defendants.

The court extended until March 3, 2023, the deadline for King, Olsowy, and Tharas to answer, move, or otherwise respond to the second amended complaint.

By March 17, 2023, Rivera had to choose between filing a third amended complaint and filing one opposition addressing the New Fairfield Defendants’ motion to dismiss and any motion filed by King, Olsowy, and Tharas. A third amended complaint would replace the second amended complaint rather than supplement it, and Rivera could not add Wagnblas or Stevenson as defendants. If Rivera filed a third amended complaint, defendants would have 21 days to answer, move to dismiss, or notify the court that they relied on their earlier motions. If he did not amend, the motions would proceed under the regular schedule, and the court stated that it was unlikely to allow another amendment to address deficiencies identified in fully briefed motions.

The Clerk was also directed to change the docketed defendant name from “New Fairfield Connecticut Police” to “New Fairfield Resident Trooper’s Office.” The court certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free appeal status. This order addressed service, scheduling, amendment, and related case-management matters; it did not decide the pending motion to dismiss on the merits.