United States District Court, D. Connecticut
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER
A. BOLDEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Richard Hoegemann, is incarcerated at the Corrigan-Radgowski
Correctional Institution. He brings this Complaint against
Defendants, East Haven Police Officer Donato Palma and
Connecticut Parole Officers Jennifer Desena, James Long,
Frank Mirto, Randy Lagana, Michael Cardona, Kate Fortuna and
Sheila Thompson. ECF No. 1. He has also filed a motion to
appoint counsel. ECF No. 3. For the reasons set forth below,
the Complaint will be dismissed in part and the motion to
appoint counsel is DENIED without prejudice to renewal.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). 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 omitted). A complaint that
includes only “labels and conclusions, ” “a
formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of
action” or “naked assertions devoid of further
factual enhancement, ” does not meet the facial
plausibility standard. Id. (internal quotation marks
omitted) (citing 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,
72-73 (2d Cir. 2009) (“Even after Twombly,
though, we remain obligated to construe a pro se complaint
liberally. . . . We conclude, nonetheless, that the amended
complaint fails to state [a claim] . . . even under liberal
standards of review for pro se pleadings.”)
November 2014, Mr. Hoegemann was allegedly serving a term of
parole from his Connecticut criminal sentence. On November
26, 2014, Parole Officer Gregory Denote allegedly removed an
electronic monitoring bracelet from Mr. Hoegemann's wrist
because Mr. Hoegemann had exhibited good behavior. Compl.
¶¶ 1, 150, ECF No. 1.
December 3, 2014 Incident
December 3, 2014, Mr. Hoegemann allegedly went to the New
Britain parole office to return the equipment associated with
the monitoring bracelet. Compl. ¶ 1. At the office, Mr.
Hoegemann allegedly engaged in a conversation with Parole
Officer Desena. Id. ¶ 3. Although Officer
Denote had allegedly determined that Mr. Hoegemann no longer
needed to be monitored using an electronic bracelet, Officer
Desena allegedly instructed Mr. Hoegemann to be home at 7:00
p.m. that day to be fitted with a new electronic bracelet.
Id. ¶¶ 5-6. Mr. Hoegemann allegedly
informed Officer Desena that he had a court-ordered
counseling session with a therapist in Hamden and his
son's mother from 5:45 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. that evening.
Id. ¶ 7.
that day, Officers Desena and Long allegedly contacted Mr.
Hoegemann and instructed him to be at his home at 8:00 p.m.
that evening. Compl. ¶ 8. Mr. Hoegemann allegedly
attended his counseling session that evening and stopped at a
gas station on his way home. Id. ¶ 16. He
alleges that he arrived at his home at 7:50 p.m. Id.
¶ 17. Officer Long allegedly arrived at Mr.
Hoegemann's home at 8:40 p.m. and applied the monitoring
bracelet to his ankle at 8:50 p.m. Id. ¶¶
after Officer Long allegedly finished applying the monitoring
bracelet to Mr. Hoegemann's ankle, Mr. Hoegemann alleges
that he secured his residence and was preparing to leave for
work with one of his employees. Compl. ¶ 21. He alleges
that, before he was able to leave for work, he received a
call from Officer Palma, who allegedly identified himself as
an East Haven police officer and asked Mr. Hoegemann what he
had been doing that evening and where he had been.
Id. ¶ 21-23. Mr. Hoegemann allegedly informed
Officer Palma that he had been at a court-ordered counseling
session from 5:45 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. and that he then returned
home and was, at the time of the conversation, in the front
yard of his residence with Parole Officer Long and getting
ready to leave for work. Id. ¶ 24. Eventually,
Officer Long allegedly also spoke to Officer Palma on the
phone and allegedly confirmed Mr. Hoegemann's explanation
of his whereabouts that evening before hanging up the phone.
Id. ¶¶ 30-35.
time Officer Long allegedly hung up the phone following the
call from Officer Palma to Mr. Hoegemann, it was allegedly
around 9:20 p.m. Compl. ¶ 37. Mr. Hoegemann alleges that
he wanted to leave for work at that time, but Officer Long
allegedly indicated that Mr. Hoegemann could not leave yet
because Officer Long had to ask him a few more questions from
Officer Palma. Id. ¶¶ 36, 39. Officer Long
then allegedly asked Mr. Hoegemann whether he had been in
East Haven at 8:00 p.m. Id. ¶ 40.
Palma allegedly called Mr. Hoegemann again at around 9:30
p.m. to speak to Officer Long. Compl. ¶ 44. Officer
Palma allegedly told Officer Long that Officer Desena had
given authorization to Officer Long to conduct a strip search
of Mr. Hoegemann. Id. ¶¶ 44-46. Officer
Long allegedly conducted this strip search in the front yard
of Mr. Hoegemann's residence, in full view of his
neighbor's residences and of Mr. Hoegemann's
employee. Id. ¶ 47. Officer Long allegedly also
searched Mr. Hoegemann's car at Officer Palma's
request. Id. ¶¶ 50-51. After the
completion of the searches, Officer Long allegedly informed
Mr. Hoegemann that he was free to leave. Id.
10:00 p.m. that evening, Mr. Hoegemann alleges that Officer
Desena called him and informed him that she had had a long
conversation with Officer Palma. Compl. ¶ 55. She
allegedly informed Ms. Hoegemann that she had authorized the
strip search and that Mr. Hoegemann could be searched
anywhere at any time and that he should stop complaining.
Id. ¶¶ 57, 59.
Alleged Parole Violation and Detention
December 5, 2014, Officer Desena allegedly called Mr.
Hoegemann around 9:00 a.m. Compl. ¶ 60. She allegedly
inquired about where he was and what car he was driving.
Id. Mr. Hoegemann alleges that he informed her that
he was at work and still driving the same car as before.
Id. ¶ 61.
Desena allegedly informed Mr. Hoegemann that he was not
permitted to visit with his son and that all further
visitation with his son was terminated until further notice.
Compl. ¶ 63. When Mr. Hoegemann protested, Officer
Desena allegedly threatened to find him in violation of his
parole conditions. Id. ¶¶ 64-67.
that day, Officer Desena allegedly called Mr. Hoegemman and
instructed him to report to the Waterbury Parole Office at
3:00 p.m. that afternoon. Compl. ¶ 76-77. Mr. Hogemann
allegedly arrived early for his appointment, around 2:30 p.m.
Id. ¶ 83. Officer Desena and Officer Mirto
allegedly informed Mr. Hoegemann that an individual had
reported an alleged assault that occurred on December 2,
2014, which Officer Palma had reported to Officer Desena.
Id. ¶¶ 84-85. Officers Mirto, Desena,
Long, Fortuna, and Thompson allegedly took Mr. Hogemann into
custody at around 2:45 p.m., based on an allegation that Mr.
Hoegemann had violated the law. Id. ¶¶
84-86, 89. Mr. Hoegemann was allegedly detailed at the New
Haven County Correctional Center. Id. ¶ 95.
Alleged Violation Hearing and Arrest Warrant
December 9, 2014, Mr. Hoegemann allegedly received a notice
of a parole violation. Compl. ¶ 95. Mr. Hoegemann
alleges that he refused to sign the notice because he thought
the allegations were false. Id. ¶ 96.
December 22, 2014, Parole Officer Lagana allegedly went to
Mr. Hoegemann's cell and informed him that a preliminary
hearing regarding the alleged parole violation would take
place that day. Compl. ¶¶ 97-98. Mr. Hoegemann
alleges that he never received a notice of the hearing nor
any documentation regarding the alleged parole violations.
Id. ¶ 99. Officer Lagana allegedly informed Mr.
Hoegemann that he was not entitled to notice of the hearing
or documentation of the violations. Id. ¶ 100.
hearing, Mr. Hoegemann alleges that he was not provided with
any written documentation related to the hearing or the
finding of probable cause with regards to the alleged parole
violation. Compl. ¶ 102. Mr. Hoegemann alleges that he
was not given the right to “confront adverse
information being used to detain [him].” Id.
At the conclusion of the hearing, officers allegedly
transported Mr. Hoegemann to Cheshire Correctional
Institution (“Cheshire”). Id. ¶
February 6, 2015, Officer Lagana allegedly visited Mr.
Hoegemann at Cheshire. Compl. ¶ 108. Mr. Hoegemann
alleges that he provided Officer Lagana with documents
related to the alleged December 3, 2014 incident and Mr.
Hoegemann's allegation that Officer Palma and Officer
Desena “conspired with each other and altered dates
from an alleged incident from Dec. 3rd, 2014 to
Dec. 2nd, 2014, to falsely detain Plaintiff on a
parole violation.” Id. ¶ 109. Officer
Lagana allegedly reviewed these documents. Id.
¶ 110. Officer Lagana allegedly then informed Mr.
Hoegemann that a final revocation hearing was scheduled to
take place on February 19, 2015 and that violations of two
conditions of parole were alleged: (1) “obey all laws
and report any arrest” and (2) “statutory
release.” Id. ¶¶ 111-12.
February 6, 2015, Mr. Hoegemann alleges that he received a
letter from the Board of Pardon and Parole, indicating that
the final revocation hearing would occur on February 19,
2015. Compl. ¶ 114. Mr. Hoegemann alleges that this
notice did not indicate which conditions of parole he had
allegedly violated. Id.
around February 11, 2015, Officer Palma allegedly served Mr.
Hoegemann with a arrest warrant for the assault that had
allegedly occurred on December 2, 2014. Compl. ¶¶
115-16. The arrest warrant affidavit allegedly included
information about an assault that allegedly occurred at
Robinson Aviation in East Haven, Connecticut on December 2,
2014. Id. ¶ 118.
Hoegemann claims that the alleged assault actually occurred
on December 3, 2014 and not on December 2, 2014. Compl.
¶ 119. He alleges that Officer Palma conspired with
other defendants to intentionally change the date of the
assault in the arrest warrant affidavit to December 2, 2014
because they knew Mr. Hoegemann could not have committed the
assault on December 3, 2014. Id. ¶¶
Final Revocation Hearing
February 19, 2015, Mr. Hoegemann alleges that he appeared
before Parole Board Members Richards and Zaccagnin and
Officer Lagana for a final revocation hearing. Compl. ¶
122. The Board Members and Officer Lagana allegedly informed
Mr. Hoegemann that the new criminal charge would need to be
dismissed in order to show that there was no violation of the
conditions of his parole and to reinstate his parole status
and allow his release. Id. ¶ 123. Mr. Hoegemann
alleges that the hearing was continued pending the
disposition of the criminal assault charges. Id.
Hoegemann alleges that he subsequently learned that Nazia
Rahman and Glen Evans allegedly made false statements to
Officer Palma at the East Haven Police Department on December
3, 2014. Compl. ¶ 128. This allegedly false police
report claimed that Mr. Hoegemann was involved in an
altercation at Robinson Aviation at approximately 7:30 p.m.
on December 3, 2014. Id. ¶ 131. Rahman and
Evans allegedly also filed a separate complaint with the
Hamden Police Department on December 3, 2014 indicating that
on that day, they were in Hamden from 6:00 p.m. through 10:30
p.m. Id. ¶ 132.
March 17, 2015, Mr. Hoegemann allegedly prepared an affidavit
in support of a criminal complaint against Rahman and Evans
for their alleged false statements. Compl. ¶ 128. Mr.
Hoegemann's attorney allegedly submitted the complaint to
the East Haven Police Department. Id. ¶ 129.
Officer Palma allegedly investigated Mr. Hoegemann's
claim that Rahman and Evans made false statements about him.