United States District Court, D. Connecticut
RULING AND ORDER
A. BOLDEN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dashante Scott Jones, currently resides in Hartford,
Connecticut. He has filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. §
1983, alleging violations of law that occurred while he was
in the custody of Connecticut’s Department of
Correction. He has named Mental Health Workers Scarlett
Forbes, Pat Ward, Debi Ward and William Longo, Drs. Mark
Frayne, Gerold Gonye, Johny Wu and Carson Wright, Captain
Marinelli, Warden Ann Cornouyer and Health Services
Administrator Ritchard Farey as Defendants. Mr. Jones has
also filed a motion for injunctive relief and a motion to
preserve videotapes. For the reasons set forth below, the
Complaint is dismissed in part, and the pending motions are
Initial Review of the Complaint [ECF No. 1]
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) and (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. 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.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2).
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, ’ or ‘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, ” a 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 omitted).
Jones claims that on May 22, 2014, at Corrigan Correctional
Institution (“Corrigan”), prison staff sexually
assaulted him. Prison officials allegedly transferred him
to Northern Correctional Institution (“Northern”)
later that day. Mr. Jones claims that he was not able to
submit a claim under the Prison Rape Elimination Act
(“PREA”) until fifteen days after he was
allegedly sexually assaulted by prison staff at Corrigan. In
early June 2014, Captain Marinelli allegedly falsified
reports that he submitted in connection with Mr.
Jones’s claim under the PREA. Mr. Jones also claims
that Warden Cornouyer refused to report the alleged sexual
assault on the Mr. Jones to the Connecticut State Police.
Jones claims that Dr. Frayne examined him on May 23, 2014 at
Northern. During this exam, Dr. Frayne allegedly noted that
someone had kicked Mr. Jones in the testicles. Mr. Jones
claims that Dr. Frayne refused to characterize the assault by
prison officials at Corrigan as a sexual assault because Dr.
Frayne had allegedly sexually assaulted individuals at a
prior place of employment.
Northern, Defendants Debi Ward, Scarlett Forbes and Pat Ward
allegedly refused to speak to Mr. Jones privately about his
mental health issues. Instead, he claims that they would
speak to him at his cell door so that other inmates could
hear what was said about his mental health issues, in
violation of his right to privacy. This conduct allegedly
occurred for seven months. Mr. Jones claims that when he told
Defendant Farey about this conduct, Farey failed to take any
Gonye allegedly discontinued Mr. Jones’s mental health
medications despite the fact that Mr. Jones had been
previously diagnosed as suffering from Post Traumatic Stress
Disorder. Dr. Gonye allegedly informed Mr. Jones that he had
discontinued the medications because he did not think Mr.
Jones suffered from a condition that required medication. Mr.
Jones also claims that Dr. Gonye considered the requests for
mental health treatment and medication as an attempt by Mr.
Jones to influence the sentence that he might receive in
connection with his state criminal case.
Jones alleges that Defendant Wright did not prescribe
medication for his head injury in a timely manner. Dr. Wright
also allegedly refused to issue an order that Mr. Jones
undergo an MRI, but did prescribe pain medication for the
injury to his testicles.
Jones claims that he filed a complaint against the Defendants
with the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities
(“CHRO”) in August or September 2014. On November
6, 2014, after Mr. Jones accused Defendant Frayne of having
molested individuals at his prior place of employment,
Defendant Frayne allegedly issued Mr. Jones a disciplinary
report for using foul language and intimidating staff.
Defendant Longo was listed as a witness to the disciplinary
infraction, but Mr. Jones claims that he was not present at
November 7, 2014, Defendant Frayne allegedly placed Mr. Jones
on behavior observation status in retaliation for filing his
complaint with the CHRO. He also allegedly ordered prison
officials to remove legal work from Mr. Jones’s cell.
Mr. Jones claims that when he informed Defendant Cornouyer of
his unlawful placement on behavior observation status, she
failed to take any action.
Mr. Jones claims that Dr. Johny Wu is the supervisor of all
of the Defendants. He alleges that he contacted Dr. Wu in
2014 seeking medical treatment for his injuries from a
medical provider outside of the Department of Correction, and
Dr. Wu failed to take any action. In January 2015, prison
officials at Northern allegedly transferred Mr. Jones to
Cheshire Correctional Institution.
Official Capacity Claims
relief, Mr. Jones seeks monetary damages. To the extent that
Mr. Jones seeks damages against the Defendants in their
official capacities, the claims are barred by the Eleventh
Amendment. See Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 342
(1979); see also Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State
Police, 491 ...