Order | Filed: July 23, 2026
| Entered: July 23, 2026
Castro-Cruz v. Nieves et al
Civil Rights: Jobs | Connecticut
Order
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Defendants BOR-CSCU & Capitol Community College, Wilfredo Nieves, Terrence Cheng, Frank Cassetta, and Mark Wasielewski have moved for an order requiring Plaintiff to post a bond as security for costs in the amount of $500, pursuant to District of Connecticut Local Rule 83.3(a). Plaintiff opposes the motion. Under District of Connecticut Local Rule 83.3, "[a]ny time after the commencement of an action, the defendants... are entitled on request to the Clerk to an order to be entered by the Clerk, as of course, for a cash deposit or bond with recognized corporate surety in the sum of $500.00 as security for costs, to be given within thirty days from the entry of such order." For purposes of the rule, defendants who are jointly represented by the same counsel are deemed to be one party for the $500 limitation.
Plaintiff requests that the Court modify or waive the bond requirement, arguing that these Defendants have not demonstrated a particularized need for security for costs; that they do not identify any concrete risks that ordinary litigation costs could not be recovered if they prevail in this litigation; and that Defendants are state entities and officials, while he is a pro se private litigant. As to the first two arguments, Local Rule 83.3 does not require defendants to state a particularized need for security, nor establish that litigation costs cannot be recovered in the ordinary course if they were to prevail. And while the Court understands that $500 is not an insignificant amount of money, bare assertions of financial inequality do not reach the threshold of "good cause" required to for the Court to waive the bond requirement under Local Rule 83.3. Courts in this district consistently enforce Local Rule 83.3's requirement except where the plaintiff has a demonstrated inability to pay with evidence. See, e.g., Brown v. Tuttle, No. 3:13-CV-1444 (VAB), 2016 WL 471246, at *1 (D. Conn. Feb. 5, 2016) (lowering the bond amount required pursuant to Local Rule 83.3 from $500 to $106.62 where the plaintiff demonstrated he had only $106.62 in his prisoner bank account). Likewise, in another case in this district, a court required payment of the security when the plaintiff did not provide evidence of indigency, based on the fact that the plaintiff had paid the filing fee in several cases and had paid for service on many defendants. Antar v. Grossman, 3:23-CV-1337-MPS at ECF No. 488 (D. Conn. Mar. 16, 2024). Here, like the plaintiff in Antar, Plaintiff paid the filing fee in this action and has paid for service on many Defendants.
Accordingly, the Court intends to enforce Local Rule 83.3's bond requirement, absent a showing by Plaintiff that he cannot pay. By August 5, 2026, Plaintiff shall supplement his opposition at ECF No. 138 with evidence of his inability to pay the $500 bond. The filing should include, under seal, a copy of Plaintiff's two most recent monthly bank statements from any financial accounts under his custody or control, including personal and business checking and savings accounts, retirement accounts, investment or brokerage accounts, or any other relevant financial accounts. Alternatively, should Plaintiff determine that he is capable of paying the bond, he must do so by August 5, 2026, in lieu of filing the bank statements. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 7/23/2026.(sd)