McCarthy v. Chernovetz, No. Cv 92 0292755 (Apr. 9, 1992)
Opinion of the Court
The defendant warden has filed a motion to quash the writ of habeas corpus, and has attached affidavits from two medical doctors who have examined the petitioner and concluded that he is in fact receiving adequate medical care despite his persistent requests for tylenol with codeine, which has been denied.
With respect to the law library and his pending felony case in Danbury, the petitioner has chosen not to utilize the public defender's office, and therefore his complaints about the law library do not state a cause of action in this habeas corpus petition.
The petitioner's request for an order from this court concerning moving him to another facility during the pendency of his Danbury trial does not cite any authority, nor does this court know of any.
Accordingly, the respondent's motion to quash is granted on all three grounds.
So Ordered.
Dated at Bridgeport, Connecticut, this 7 day of April, 1992.
WILLIAM B. LEWIS, JUDGE
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.