United States District Court, D. Connecticut
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER
R. UNDERHILL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
plaintiff, Kenya Brown (“Brown”), is incarcerated
at the Cheshire Correctional Institution in Cheshire,
Connecticut (“Cheshire”). He has filed a civil
rights complaint against Commissioner Scott Semple, Director
of Mental Health Dr. Robert Trestman, Dr. Crabb, Dr. Gerald
Gagne, Jr., Warden Santiago, Deputy Warden Robert Martin,
Deputy Warden Jeffery Zegerzuski, Captain James Shabbanis,
Correctional Officer Aponte, Health Services Administrator
Ron Lanbontte and Administrative Remedy Coordinator Kimberly
Daly. For the reasons set forth below, the complaint is
dismissed in part.
12, and July 15, 2016, the court held telephone conferences
with Brown and Assistant Attorney General Madeline Melchionne
regarding Brown's request for a temporary restraining
order seeking mental health treatment. See Mem. Law
Supp. Mot. TRO, Doc. No. 2; Conference Mem. & Order, Doc.
the telephone conferences, the parties agreed to an interim
course of action with regard to Brown's mental health
treatment involving twice weekly mental health care, the
ability to request additional services if necessary and a
complete evaluation of Brown by a physician from the
Department of Correction at the end of August to determine
Brown's proper mental health classification and whether
he should be transferred to a different prison facility based
on that mental health classification. See id.
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), 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. This requirement applies both
where the inmate has paid the filing fee and where he is
proceeding in forma pauperis. See Carr v.
Dvorin, 171 F.3d 115 (2d Cir. 1999) (per curiam). 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 still 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
claims that since 1993, mental health professionals have
prescribed medications to treat his various mental health
conditions including, borderline personality disorder,
anxiety, anti-social traits, suicidal ideation,
self-mutilation, depression and post traumatic stress
disorder. The Department of Correction has designated Brown
with the “S” classification because he has
attempted to mutilate himself and commit suicide in the past.
The Department of Correction has also created several
profiles between Brown and other inmates because of past
incidents between Brown and those inmates. Those profiles
prevent Brown from being housed at Garner or Osborn
Correctional Institutions because the other inmates with whom
he had prior conflicts are housed at those facilities and the
facilities are not large enough to accommodate both Brown and
the other inmates.
19, 2016, Brown was incarcerated at Corrigan Correctional
Institution (“Corrigan”) and became involved in a
heated debate with Officer Aponte. Brown became agitated and
tried to harm himself. Correctional officials called a code
and escorted Brown to the medical infirmary to be placed on
Aponte left all of Brown's property in his cell after
officials escorted him to the infirmary at Corrigan. Brown
asserts that some of his property was stolen by his cellmate
before officials removed the remaining property from his cell
and inventoried it.
point, after the plaintiff's placement in the medical
infirmary, Warden Santiago, Deputy Warden Martin, Deputy
Warden Zegerzuski, Captain Shabbanis, Health Services
Administrator Lanbontte, Dr. Gagne and Dr. Crabb concluded
that the only possible course of action was to transfer Brown
to Cheshire. Dr. Crabb adjusted Brown's mental health
score to facilitate his transfer to Cheshire. On May 31,
2016, correctional officers transported Brown to Cheshire.
claims that Cheshire does not have the appropriate mental
health professionals, resources or services to treat his
mental illnesses. Because Cheshire has no mental health
units, officials have placed him in the segregation unit on
behavior observation status. The conditions of confinement in
the segregation unit are unsanitary and unsafe. Brown
contends that Drs. Gagne and Crabb, Warden Santiago, Deputy
Wardens Robert Martin and Jeffery Zegerzuski, Captain
Shabbanis and Administrator Lanbontte were all aware that
Cheshire could not provide him with the appropriate mental
health treatment, but transferred him anyway.
claims that Dr. Gagne was involved in the decision to
transfer him to Cheshire and approved the decision in
retaliation for his filing of past grievances and complaints
about mental health treatment. Brown also suggests that the
decision to transfer him to Cheshire was made in retaliation
for a settlement agreement that he had reached with the
Office of the Attorney General pertaining to several lawsuits
he had filed against correctional officials.
characterizes this action as one for emergency injunctive
relief to redress deprivations of his rights. See
Compl. at 3. In the relief section of the complaint, however,
he seeks punitive and compensatory damages as well as
declaratory and injunctive relief. See Id. at 32-33.
Section 1981 Claims
claims that the defendants discriminated against him in
violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Section ...