United States District Court, D. Connecticut
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER
R. UNDERHILL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
plaintiff, Leo Remillard, is incarcerated at the
MacDougall-Walker Correctional Institution in Suffield,
Connecticut (“MacDougall-Walker”). He has filed a
complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Warden, a
Deputy Warden and a Counselor-Supervisor at
MacDougall-Walker. For the reasons set forth below, the
complaint is dismissed.
to section 1915A(b) of Title 28 of the United States Code,
the Court must review prisoner civil complaints against
governmental actors and “dismiss . . . any portion of
[a] complaint [that] is frivolous, malicious, or fails to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted, ” or
that “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is
immune from such relief.” Id. Rule 8 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that a complaint
contain “a short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”
detailed allegations are not required, “a complaint
must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to
state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. A
claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads
factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). A
complaint that includes only “‘labels and
conclusions, ’ ‘a formulaic recitation of the
elements of a cause of action’ or ‘naked
assertion[s]’ devoid of ‘further factual
enhancement, ’” does not meet the facial
plausibility standard. Id. (quoting Bell Atl.
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 557 (2007)).
Although courts have an obligation to interpret “a
pro se complaint liberally, ” the complaint
must include sufficient factual allegations to meet the
standard of facial plausibility. See Harris v.
Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir. 2009) (citations
alleges that on November 19, 2015, he filed a complaint in
this Court. See Remillard v. Maldonado, Case No.
3:15-cv-1714(SRU). On November 24, 2015, the Court issued a
notice informing Remillard of deficiencies in his application
to proceed in forma pauperis. See id., Doc.
alleges that on November 25, 2015, he filed a second
complaint in this Court. See Remillard v. Semple,
Case No. 3:15-cv-1741(SRU). On December 2, 2015, the Court
issued a notice informing Remillard of deficiencies in his
application to proceed in forma pauperis. See
id., Doc. No. 6.
contends that he did not receive either Notice in time to
respond. The Court dismissed both cases in late January 2016
due to his failure to correct the deficiencies in his
applications to proceed in forma pauperis. See
Remillard, Case No. 3:15-cv-1714(SRU), Doc. No. 7;
Remillard, Case No. 3:15-cv-1741(SRU), Doc. No. 7.
On February 10, 2016, Counselor Supervisor Blanchard called
Remillard to his office and gave him multiple notices of
court orders entered in both of his federal cases, including
the notices dismissing both cases in January 2016. Remillard
wrote to Warden Chapdelaine and Deputy Warden Mudano
regarding the delays in receiving orders and notices from the
federal court. They did not respond.
mid-March 2016, Remillard filed motions to reopen both cases.
See Remillard, Case No. 3:15-cv-1714(SRU), Doc. No.
8; Remillard, Case No. 3:15-cv-1741(SRU), Doc. No.
8. The Court subsequently granted the motions to reopen as
well as Remillard’s applications to proceed in
forma pauperis in both cases. See Remillard,
Case No. 3:15-cv-1714(SRU), Doc. No. 11; Remillard,
Case No. 3:15-cv-1741(SRU), Doc. No. 10.
allegations regarding the delay in receiving notices and
orders from the federal court may be construed as a claim of
denial of access to the courts. It is well settled that
inmates have a First Amendment right of access to the courts.
See Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 828 (1977),
modified on other grounds by Lewis v. Casey, 518
U.S. 343, 350 (1996). To state a claim for denial of access
to the courts, Remillard is required to demonstrate that he
suffered an actual injury as a result of the conduct of the
defendants. See Lewis, 518 U.S. at 353. To establish
an actual injury, Remillard must allege facts showing that
the defendants took or were responsible for actions that
hindered his efforts to pursue a legal claim, prejudiced one
of his existing actions, or otherwise actually interfered
with his access to the courts. See Monsky v.
Moraghan, 127 F.3d 243, 247 (2d Cir. 1997), cert.
denied, 525 U.S. 823 (1998).
the delay in receipt of the notices setting forth
deficiencies in Remillard’s applications to proceed
in forma pauperis resulted in the dismissals of both
actions, the dismissals were without prejudice. Remillard
concedes that he moved to reopen both cases and that the
Court granted those motions. In addition, the Court granted
Remillard leave to proceed in forma pauperis in both
actions. See Remillard, Case No. 3:15cv1714(SRU),
Doc. No. 11; Remillard, Case No. 3:15cv1741(SRU),
Doc. No. 10. Thus, Remillard has not alleged that the delay
in receipt of court notices and orders prejudiced his pursuit
of either lawsuit. In fact, Remillard’s only real
complaint is that he suffered undue stress because he was
required to take steps to reopen his cases. Accordingly,
Remillard does not meet the actual injury requirement set
forth in Lewis. Remillard’s claim regarding
denial of access to courts is dismissed. See 28
U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1).
Court enters the ...