United States District Court, D. Connecticut
MERLE E. STIMPSON, Plaintiff,
COMM’R CORRECTION OFFICE, ET AL., Defendants.
RULING AND ORDER
R. Underhill United States District Judge
plaintiff, Merle E. Stimpson, incarcerated and pro
se, initiated this action by filing a complaint alleging
that the defendants, the Office of the Commissioner of
Corrections, Warden Carol Chapdelaine and Captain Hall,
violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United
States Constitution. See Compl., Doc. No. 1. The
plaintiff recently filed a letter seeking to amend the
complaint. See Letter Mot., Doc. No.
complaint includes the following allegations. See
Compl., Doc. No. 1. On or about February 14, 2016, at
MacDougall-Walker Correctional Institution, prison officials
placed Stimpson in a cell with an inmate named George R.
Andino. At that time, the Department of Corrections was aware
that Inmate Andino was a sexual predator. Stimpson contacted
Captain Hall on several occasions seeking to be moved because
Inmate Andino had made sexual advances towards him, had
sexually assaulted him by groping him, and had verbally and
physically intimidated him. Captain Hall took no action and
refused to move Stimpson to another cell.
February 25, 2016, Stimpson returned to his cell to find his
cellmate masturbating to a photograph of his young daughter.
Stimpson brought this incident to the attention of several
officers and Captain Hall, but no action was taken against
that day, correctional staff accused Stimpson of writing a
letter to the Office of the Commissioner of Corrections as if
he were Inmate Andino. In the letter, Stimpson, as Inmate
Andino, claimed to be a homosexual and asked to be moved to
protective custody. Correctional staff moved Stimpson to
segregation because of the letter.
claims that prison staff placed him in segregation without a
hearing and did not permit him to take his personal property
with him. He could not shower for four days. He seeks
letter motion to amend seeks to add new claims regarding an
incident that occurred on June 8, 2016, that may or may not
be related to the incidents described in the complaint.
Because the defendants have not responded to the complaint
and this is Stimpson’s first request to file an amended
complaint, the letter motion to amend is granted.
does not attach a proposed amended complaint to his motion
that contains a case caption that complies with the rules
governing the form of pleadings. Thus, it is unclear who the
defendants might be. In addition, the letter motion does not
include any of the claims that were set forth in the original
complaint. Stimpson is cautioned that an amended complaint
completely replaces the original complaint. Thus, any amended
complaint should include the allegations against Captain Hall
with regard to the incidents in the initial complaint to the
extent Stimpson still seeks to pursue those claims.
addition, the court observes that Stimpson has not alleged
that he exhausted his administrative remedies with regard to
any of the incidents set forth in the initial complaint or in
the motion to amend. Section 1997e of Title 42 of the United
States Code, which governs actions brought by prison inmates,
provides: “No action shall be brought with respect to
prison conditions under section 1983 of this title, or any
other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail,
prison, or other correctional facility until such
administrative remedies as are available are
exhausted.” Id. at § 1997e(a). That
subsection applies to all claims arising from prison life,
including the use of excessive force by prison staff. See
Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 532 (2002).
of all available administrative remedies must occur
regardless of whether the administrative procedures provide
the relief that the inmate seeks. See Booth v.
Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001). Furthermore,
prisoners must comply with all procedural rules regarding the
grievance process prior to commencing an action in federal
court. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 83-85
(2006). Thus, completion of the exhaustion process after a
federal action has been filed does not satisfy the exhaustion
requirement. See Neal v. Goord, 267 F.3d 116, 122
(2d Cir. 2001).
court notes that Stimpson signed the complaint on March 29,
2016, forty-six days after being placed in a cell with Inmate
Andino and thirty-four days after being placed in
segregation. With regard to the claims in the motion to
amend, the motion is dated two days after a different inmate
was allegedly placed in Stimpson’s cell allegedly in
order to extract information from him about this lawsuit. The
short time period between the incidents and the filing of the
Complaint and motion to amend suggests that there was
insufficient time for Stimpson to have exhausted his
administrative remedies before initiating this lawsuit or
filing the motion to amend.
amended complaint must include allegations regarding any
attempts by the plaintiff to exhaust administrative ...