United States District Court, D. Connecticut
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER RE AMENDED COMPLAINT
A. BOLDEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Anthony Mack, currently incarcerated at the Cheshire
Correctional Institution, filed a complaint in this case
pro se under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He asserts
claims for deliberate indifference to safety and neglect. On
June 17, 2016, the Court ordered Mr. Mack to file an amended
complaint clarifying his claims. Specifically, the Court
directed Mr. Mack to explain what actions each defendant took
or failed to take, that resulted in the alleged deprivation
of his constitutional rights. See ECF No. 7 at 4. On
June 27, 2016, the Court received two amended complaints,
mailed in separate envelopes, ECF Nos. 11, 12. Attached to
the second Amended Complaint [ECF No. 12] was a note stating,
“Void all others use this one.” ECF No. 12 at 1.
light of this note, the Court considers ECF No. 12 to be the
operative Amended Complaint in this case. On July 7, 2016,
and July 11, 2016, Mr. Mack filed documents described as
attachments to the Amended Complaint. The Court considers the
allegations in the second Amended Complaint and both
attachments in this Order. Mr. Mack includes the same
defendants, Commissioner Semple, Warden Falcone, Captain
McDaniels, Dr. Girbino and Correctional Officer Angel, in the
Standard of Review
section 1915A of title 28 of the United States Code, the
Court must review prisoner civil complaints and dismiss any
portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, that
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. In reviewing a pro se
complaint, the Court must assume the truth of the
allegations, and interpret them liberally to “raise the
strongest arguments [they] suggest.” Abbas v.
Dixon, 480 F.3d 636, 639 (2d Cir. 2007) (citing
Weixel v. Board of Education of New York, 287 F.3d
138, 146 (2d Cir.2002)). Although detailed allegations are
not required, the complaint must include sufficient facts to
afford the defendants fair notice of the claims and the
grounds upon which they are based and to demonstrate a right
to relief. Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,
allegations are not sufficient. Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). The plaintiff must plead
“enough facts to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at
570. Nevertheless, it is well-established that “pro se
complaints 'must be construed liberally and interpreted
to raise the strongest arguments that they
suggest.'” Sykes v. Bank of Am., 723 F.3d
399, 403 (2d Cir. 2013) (quoting Triestman v. Fed. Bureau
of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474 (2d Cir. 2006)); see
also Tracy v. Freshwater, 623 F.3d 90, 101-02 (2d Cir.
2010) (discussing special rules of solicitude for pro
Mack alleges that, as a child, he was beaten and sexually
assaulted while in foster care and also learned about the
killing of another child in foster care.
2015, Mr. Mack alleges that he was doing push-ups in the
dayroom at Garner Correctional Institution, when an allegedly
transgendered inmate, who allegedly identifies as female,
committed a sexual assault against him. Mr. Mack claims that,
when he was leaving the dayroom to report the incident to
correctional staff, the inmate, who allegedly assaulted him,
called him a rat and said he would be accused of rape and
that charges would be pressed against him if he reported the
incident. Mr. Mack states that he was afraid because there
were no cameras in the dayroom.
time, Mr. Mack was sitting in the ping pong dayroom and this
same inmate allegedly assaulted him again. After complaining
to this inmate, that inmate again allegedly threated to
accuse him of rape. On a third occasion, this same inmate
allegedly called Mr. Mack to witness an act of masturbation.
Again, this inmate allegedly told Mr. Mack that if he told
anyone, a claim of rape would be lodged against him by this
inmate and another inmate.
Mack claims he began to experience nightmares, flashbacks,
panic attacks and anxiety attacks. He states that he
requested additional medication and was prescribed Seroquel.
He also claims he was placed on suicide watch for several
days. Mr. Mack states he gave a recorded statement to Prison
Rape Elimination Act (“PREA”) staff and was
provided some help, although he was reluctant to admit on
camera that he allegedly had been humiliated as a man.
Officer Angel allegedly told another inmate, who was
allegedly intimately involved with the inmate who had
assaulted Mr. Mack, that Mr. Mack had spoken with PREA staff.
Correctional Officer Angel was allegedly unaware that this
inmate planned to marry the inmate who had allegedly
assaulted Mack. Mr. Mack opines that, if this inmate loved
the allegedly assaultive inmate enough to marry her, he could
have killed Mr. Mack.
Girbino, allegedly aware of Mr. Mack's history of sexual
and physical abuse, knew that the incidents with the
allegedly assaultive inmate had caused a setback. Mr. Mack
claims, however, that Dr. Girbino approved Mr. Mack's
transfer from Garner Correctional Institution to Cheshire
Correctional Institution, instead of providing appropriate
mental health treatment. According to Mr. Mack, doctors at
Cheshire Correctional Institution stated that he requires
long-term insight-oriented psychotherapy.
Mack claims that inmates at Cheshire Correctional Institution
have told Mr. Mack that the allegedly assaultive inmate was
transferred from there to Garner Correctional Institution for
excessive promiscuity. Mr. Mack also has heard that this
inmate tested positive for the AIDS virus, and he is fearful