United States District Court, D. Connecticut
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER
VANESSA L. BRYANT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
plaintiff, David Hill, is currently confined at Cheshire
Correctional Institution. He has filed a complaint pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 naming Warden Chapdelaine and
Correctional Officers Yekel, John Doe #1, and John Doe #2 as
defendants. For the reasons set forth below, the complaint is
dismissed in part.
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. 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, ' ‘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
plaintiff asserts that on January 23, 2014, at MacDougall
Correctional Institution (“MacDougall”), he was a
food worker in N-pod unit. Correctional Officers Yekel, John
Doe #1, and John Doe #2 were assigned to work in N-pod unit
that day. At approximately 10:40 a.m., Officers Yekel, John
Doe #1, and John Doe #2 left N-pod unit. At approximately
10:50 a.m., two unidentified inmates attacked the plaintiff
from behind as he stood at the top of the staircase in N-pod
unit. The two inmates kicked, punched and stomped on the
plaintiff and then threw him down the stairway.
correctional employee called a code and other officers
arrived at the scene. Officers escorted the plaintiff to a
triage area to be evaluated. After examining the plaintiff,
medical staff recommended that the plaintiff be transported
to the University of Connecticut Health Center
(“UCONN”) due to the nature of his injuries.
staff at UCONN treated the plaintiff's injuries. The
plaintiff subsequently spent five days in the infirmary at
MacDougall. On January 31, 2014, the plaintiff returned to
plaintiff learned from other inmates that Correctional
Officer Yekel had called him a snitch and that is the reason
two inmates assaulted him. The plaintiff claims that on many
occasions prior to the assault, he had heard Officer Yekel
refer to other inmate as snitches.
plaintiff filed multiple requests and grievances regarding
the incident. He claims that he did not receive responses to
any of his requests or grievances.
plaintiff filed a health service request on July 12, 2014.
MacDougall medical staff resolved the issues with regard to
treatment for the plaintiff's injuries. The plaintiff
claims to have suffered permanent injuries to his neck, lower
back, left ear and left eye. The plaintiff seeks a
declaratory judgment and monetary damages.
Official Capacity Claims - Money Damages
extent that the plaintiff seeks monetary damages from the
defendants in their official capacities, those claims are
barred by the Eleventh Amendment. See Kentucky v.
Graham, 473 U.S. 159 (1985) (Eleventh Amendment, which
protects the state from suits for monetary relief, also
protects state officials sued for damages in their official
capacity); Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 342 (1979)
(Section 1983 does not override a state's Eleventh
Amendment immunity). All claims for monetary damages against
the defendants in their official capacities are dismissed
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(2).
Official Capacity Claims - Declaratory Relief
plaintiff seeks declaratory relief from the defendants in
their official capacities. He asks the court to declare that
the conduct of the defendants violated his rights under the