Al-Bukhari v. Semple et al, No. 3:2015cv00322 - Document 124 (D. Conn. 2018)
Court Description: ORDER denying 87 MOTION to Deconsolidate; denying as moot 116 Motion for Clarification; denying 122 SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION re: ECF #87, Motion to Deconsolidate and Reopen the 439 Case. The claims in counts nineteen (19), twenty (20), twenty-o ne (21), twenty-two (22), twenty-three (23), twenty-four (24), twenty-five (25), twenty-six (26), twenty-seven (27), and twenty-eight (28), of the Amended Complaint, Doc. No. 66, filed in this lead case, have been WITHDRAWN by Al-Bukhari and the clai m in count eighteen (18), is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice to Al-Bukhari asserting the claim in an amended complaint filed in Riddick v. Semple, et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-1769 (SRU). The claims in counts five (5), six (6), seven (7), eight (8), and nine (9), of the Amended Complaint, Doc. No. 66, filed in this lead case, are hereby DISMISSED without prejudice to Al-Bukhari asserting those claims in an amended complaint filed in Al-Bukhari v. Correction, et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-1267 (SRU); denying as moot 116 Motion for Clarification. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 8/16/2018. (Oliver, T.)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Al-Bukhari v. Semple et al Doc. 124 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT JA-QURE AL-BUKHARI a/k/a JEROME RIDDICK, Plaintiff Case No. 3:15-cv-00322 (SRU) (LEAD) V COMMISSIONER SEMPLE, ET AL., Defendants. ORDER OF DECONSOLIDATION AND DISMISSAL OF CLAIMS Plaintiff Ja-Qure Al-Bukhari ("41-Bukhan"), alUaJerome Riddick, is currently confined in a Connecticut Department of Correction facility. On July 13,2071, the court held a status conference to discuss the management of ten civil cases filed by Al-Bukhari. At that time, this lead case had already been consolidated with member case Al-Bukhari v. Connecticut Department of Conection, et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-528 (SRU). S¿¿ Notice of Consolidation, Doc. No. 24. On July 21 ,2017, the court issued an order pertaining to the consolidation of this lead case with Al-Bukharí v. Department of Correction, et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-439 (SRU), and Riddickv. Semple, et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-1169 (SRU), in an effort to consolidate all cases that asserted claims regarding Al-Bukhari's placement on Administrative Segregation and the conditions of confinement in Administrative Segregation. See Order, Doc. No. 64, at2. Pursuant to the court's order of consolidation and the clerk's notice of consolidation, member casesAl-Bukhøriv. Department of Correction, et al., CaseNo. 3:76-cv-439 (SRU), andRiddíck v. Semple, et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-7769 (SRU) were consolidated with this lead case, the member cases were closed without prejudice and Al-Bukhari was to file an amended complaint in this lead case to assert claims pertaining to his placement on Administrative Segregation and Dockets.Justia.com the conditions of conf,rnement in Administrative Segregation. See Order, Doc. No. 64, at 2; Notice of Consolidation, Doc. No. 65, at 1. On August 75,2017, Al-Bukhari fìled an amended complaint in this action. See Am. Compl., Doc. No. 66. The amended complaint names the Department of Correction, an assistant attorney general and thirty-nine employees of the Department of Correction as defendants and includes twenty-eight counts relating to Al-Bukhari's confinement at Gamer Correctional Institution ("Gamer"), Cheshire Correctional Institution ("Cheshire"), and Northern Correctional Institution, ("Northern"). See id. Counts one through four, ten through thirteen, and sixteen pertain to Al-Bukhari's placement in Administrative Segregation at Cheshire and Garner tn2074 and 2015 and the conditions of confinement in Administrative Segregation at Cheshire, Garner and Northem, including mental health treatment, during a period from March 20T4 to August 2017; counts five through nine pertain to deprivations of Al-Bukhari's First Amendment right to practice the Muslim religion at Gamer and Cheshirein20I4 Nñ.2015; count fourteen pertains to the issuance of a disciplinary report in May 2015 for security tampering in retaliation for Al- Bukhari's use of outgoing mail; count fifteen pertains to a strip search of Al-Bukhari performed in August 2015; count seventeen pertains to a decision by prison staff to deny Al-Bukhari access to a sexually-explicit magazine in December 2014; and counts eighteen through twenty-eight pertain to violations and the enforcement of the terms of the 2014 Settlement Agreement and the 2015 Clarification of the terms of the agreement entered in Riddick v. Department of Correction, et al., Case No. 13-cv-656 (SRU), including a claim that defendants refused to comply with the terms of the 2014 Settlement Agreement in retaliation for Al-Bukhari's filing of two lawsuits in 2 2015. See id. at 4,6-39. On April 1 1, 2018, the court filed an order clarifying the claims raised in fìve cases filed by Al-Bul:hari that remain open, including this action, and one of the closed member cases that is consolidated with this action, Ríddíckv. Semple, et al., Case No. l6-cv-7769 (SRU). See Order, Doc. No. 1 I 1. Pursuant to the order, six cases, each involving specific, discrete claims will proceed and any claim currently asserted in one case that should be asserted in a different case will be dismissed without prejudice to inclusion in an amended complaint to be filed in the proper çase. See id. at2. With regard to this consolidated action, the recent order clarifying claims requires the court to deconsolidate and reopen one of the member cases, Riddick v. Semple, et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-1769 (SRU), because that case has been identified as the action in which claims for violations and enforcement of the 2014 Settlement Agreement and the 2015 Clarification of the terms of the agreement entered in Riddíckv. Department of Correctíon, et al., Case No. 13-cv656 (SRU), will be addressed from this point on. In addition, pursuant to the recent order clarifying claims, Al-Bukhari has moved to withdraw counts nineteen through twenty-eight of the amended complaint, Doc. No. 66, filed in this lead case, which pertain to violations and the enforcement of the March 2014 Settlement Agreement and the2015 Clarification of the terms of the Agreement. See Mot. V/ithdraw, Doc. No. 117. On June 5,2018, the court granted the motion to withdraw those claims. See Order, Doc. No. 1 18. As indicated above, the court also considers count eighteen, which includes a claim of a retaliatory refusal by defendants to comply with the terms of the 2014 Settlement Agreement, to be related to counts nineteen through J twenty-eight. Thus, count eighteen is hereby dismissed without prejudice to Al-Bukhari asserting that claim in an amended complaint filed in Riddick v. Semple, et al., Case No. 1 6-cv1769 (SRU). After the Clerk deconsolidates and reopens Riddick v. Semple, et al., Case No. 3:I6-cv-7769 (SRU), the court will issue an order in that case with regard to the filing of an amended complaint to include the claims from counts eighteen through twenty-eight, which pertain to violations and the enforcement of the March 2014 Settlement Agreement and the 2015 Clarifìcation of the terms of the Agreement. There is no basis on which to deconsolidate member case, Al-Bukhari v. Correction, et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-439 (SRU), or member case Al-Bukhari v. Connecticut, et al., Case No. 3:I5-cv-528 (SRU), from the lead case in this action. Thus, Al-Bukhari's motion to deconsolidate and reopen Al-Bukharí v. Correctíon, et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-439 (SRU), [Doc. No. 87], and supplemental motion to deconsolidate and reopen Al-Bukhari v. Correction, et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-439 (SRU), [Doc. No. 722], are denied. Member cases, Al-Bukhari v. Correctíon, et al., Case No. 3:76-cv-439 (SRU), and Al-Bukhari v. Connectícut, et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-528 (SRU), will remain closed and consolidated with this lead case. The order clarifying claims also requires the dismissal of counts five through nine of the amended complaint, Doc. No. 66, filed in this lead case, because those counts relate to alleged deprivations of Al-Bukhari's First Amendment right to practice his Muslim religion. As indicated in the order clariflring claims, Al-Bukharî v. Connecticut Department Correctíon, et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-1267 (SRU), includes claims pertaining to violations of Al-Bukhari's rights under the First Amendment religion and Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act 4 ("RLUIPA"). See Order, Doc. No. lll, at2. Thus, counts five through nine of the amended complaint, Doc. No. 66, filed in this lead case, which pertain to violations of Al-Bukhari's rights under the First Amendment, are hereby dismissed without prejudice to Al-Bukhari asserting those claims in an amended complaint filed in Al-Bukhari v. Correction, et al., Case No. 3:16-cv1267 (SRU). It is hereby ordered that: (1) The Clerk is directed to DECONSOLIDATE member case Riddick v. Semple, et øl.,Case No.3:16-cv-1769 (SRU), from this consolidated action and to REOPEN the case. There is no basis on which to deconsolidate member case, Al-Bukhari v. Correction, et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-439 (SRU), from the lead case in this action. Thus, Al-Bukhari's Motion to Deconsolidate and to Reopen Al-Bukharí v. Correction, et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-439 (SRU), [Doc. No. 87], and Supplemental Motion to Deconsolidate and to Reopen Al-Bukhari v. Correction, et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-439 (SRU), [Doc. No. 122], are DENIED. Member cases, Al-Bukhari v. Correctíon, et al., al., Case No. (2) 3 :I Case 5-cv-528 (SRU), No. 3:16-cv-439 (SRU) and Al-Bukhari v. Connecticut, et will remain closed and consolidated with this lead case. The claims in counts nineteen (19), twenty (20), twenty-one (2L), twenty-two (22),twenty-three (23), twenty-four (24), twenty-five (25), twenty-six (26), twenty-seven (27), and twenty-eight (28), of the Amended Complaint, Doc. No. 66, filed in this lead case, have been \ryITHDRAWN by Al-Bukhari and the claim in count eighteen (18), is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice to Al-Bukhari asserting the claim in an amended complaint filed in Riddick v. Semple, et aL, Case No.3:16-cv-1769 5 (SRU). After Riddíckv. Semple, et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-7169 (SRU), is de-consolidated and reopened by the Clerk, the court an order in that case permitting Al-Bukhari to will issue file an amended cornplaint asserting all claims previously raised in this action in counts eighteen through twenty-eight as well as all claims previously raised in other actions regarding violations and enforcement of the 2014 Settlement Agreement and the 2015 Clarification of the terms of the agreement entered in Riddick v. Department of Correction, et al., Case No. 13-cv-656 (SRU). (3) The claims in counts five (5), six (6), seven (7), eight (8), and nine (9), of the Amended Complaint, Doc. No. 66, filed in this lead case, are hereby DISMISSED without prejudice to Al-Bukhari asserting those claims in an amended complaint filed in Al-Bukharí v. Correction, et øL, Case No. 3:16-cv-1267 (SRU). Accordingly, the court will issue a separate order in Al-Bukhørí v. Correction, et øL,, Case No. 3:16-cv-1267(SRU), with regard to the filing of an amended complaint. In view of this order clarifliing the status of the claims asserted in the amended complaint in this action as well as the status of other actions filed by Al-Bukhari, the Motion for Clarification, [Doc. No. 11.6], of the court's April 11,2018 order clarifying issues in AlBukhari's open cases, [Doc. No. 111] is DENIED as moot. So ordered. Dated at Bridgeport, Connecticut this 16th day of August 2018. /s/ STEFAN R. UNDERHILL Stefan R. Underhill United States District Judge 6
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
