Charles S. Haight Jr.
Judge Haight no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.
How Judge Haight decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Flexible, equity-driven Rule 19 joinder analysis -- rejects bright-line rules and is unpersuaded by speculative future foreign litigation as a basis for compulsory joinder; a party who accepted one signatory as representative of others cannot later contest his capacity to litigate for them.
“The speculative possibility of future litigation ... furnishes no basis for compulsory joinder. ... Having accepted Song Lu as a representative to bind all the Sub-Purchasers by the SPA and Sub-Agreement, Defendants cannot now contest Lu's ability to adequately litigate claims based upon that contract.”
Gives full collateral-estoppel effect to a parallel criminal conviction in a subsequent SEC civil enforcement action, granting summary judgment on the precluded facts.
“the Second Circuit has long held that a criminal conviction, whether by jury verdict or guilty plea, constitutes estoppel in favor of the United States in a subsequent civil proceeding as to those matters determined by the judgment in the criminal case.”
Procedural preferences
Treats reconsideration / Rule 60(b) as extraordinary relief, not a second bite at the apple -- denies unless the movant identifies controlling decisions or data the court overlooked; will not entertain new arguments.
“reconsideration will generally be denied unless the moving party can point to controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked; ... a motion for reconsideration or for relief from a final judgment is not an opportunity to advance new arguments.”
Rigorous, sua sponte on subject-matter jurisdiction even against a pro se plaintiff -- applies Carden v. Arkoma's rule that a limited partnership takes the citizenship of ALL its partners, and resolves jurisdiction before reaching alternative grounds.
“In the absence of complete diversity, the Court concludes that it does not have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1332 over this case. ... Because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, it does not reach the alternative grounds for dismissal advanced by Defendants.”
Cautions
Particularizes qualified-immunity 'clearly established' law tightly to the facts -- precedent about a different prison practice (solitary-confinement duration) will not be treated as instructive to a distinct policy (out-of-cell restraint).
“the 'clearly established' element of qualified immunity must be particularized to the facts of the case. ... cases concerning the length of time a prisoner may be held in solitary confinement ... are not instructive in the present situation.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
In a pro se prisoner's Section 1983 action alleging Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment deliberate indifference over an inadequate mattress, Haight dismissed the complaint sua sponte on Section 1915A screening for failure to state a claim, with leave to amend within 30 days. All defendants were supervisors, and under Tangreti v. Bachmann a supervisor is liable only for individual acts; the plaintiff alleged no defendant's personal involvement. The order also denied three plaintiff motions as moot solely because the complaint was dismissed. Quote: 'The Complaint [Doc. 1] is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint... The Motion... [Doc. 8], Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief [Doc. 10], and Motion to give Court Notice and Request for an Emergency Injunction and/or Restraining Order [Doc. 11] are DENIED AS MOOT due to the dismissal of the Complaint.'
“Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration is DENIED. Any further arguments must be addressed to the Court of Appeals.”
“the Court GRANTS the Commission's Motion for Summary Judgment against Leon Vaccarelli, individually and doing business as Lux Financial Services, and LWLVACC, LLC [Doc. 62], which is consented to by Defendants.”
“Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Song Lu's Claims in Part for Failure to Join Necessary Parties [Doc. 168] is DENIED.”
“Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint [Doc. 4] is GRANTED. ... The Clerk shall close the case.”
“Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Amended Sur-Reply [Doc. 45] is DENIED AS MOOT.”
“Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 19] is DENIED.”
“Defendant's motion is entirely without merit. It is DENIED.”
“Defendant's Motion To Dismiss [Doc. #9] is therefore DENIED.”
“Plaintiff's Motion [Doc. 180] to exclude certain testimony of WMC's expert witnesses is DENIED.”
“Defendant's Motion [Doc. 184] to exclude sampling is DENIED.”
“Defendant's Motion [Doc. 185] to exclude the expert testimony of Mason is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.”
“Defendant's Motion [Doc. 186] to exclude expert testimony of Brazier is DENIED.”
“Defendant's Motion [Doc. 187] to exclude expert testimony of Ross is DENIED.”
“The Plaintiff's motion [Doc. 9] to remand this case to the Connecticut Superior Court for the Judicial District of Hartford, Connecticut, is GRANTED.”
“Plaintiff's Motion to Remand [Doc. 7] is GRANTED.”
“All claims asserted by Plaintiff are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, for failure to comply with the Court's March 12, 2021 order and for failure to prosecute this action.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 184 days (N = 9).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 140 days (N = 1).
Judge Haight sat by designation in the District of Connecticut after taking senior status in 1995 and became inactive on May 19, 2025. The reviewed Connecticut matters are concentrated in pro se prisoner civil-rights cases, federal habeas petitions, bankruptcy appeals, consumer disputes, and diversity contract cases. This is a caseload description rather than a rate.
A historical record
Judge Haight no longer hears cases. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.