United States District Court, D. Connecticut
RULING ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS (DOC. NO.
C. Hall United States District Judge.
plaintiff, John Rogers (“Rogers”), currently
incarcerated at Northern Correctional Institution in Somers,
Connecticut, has filed an Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 23)
pro se under section 1983 of title 42 of the United
States Code. The defendants named in the Amended Complaint
are Captain Scott Salius (“Salius”), Officer
Jared Grasso (“Grasso”), Nurse Barbara LaFrance
(“LaFrance”), Counselor Angela Maiorana
(“Maiorana”), Counselor Damian Doran
(“Doran”), Officer Shepard
(“Shepard”), Dr. Syhed Johar Naqvi (“Dr.
Naqvi”), Director of Security Kimberly Weir
(“Weir”) and Deputy Warden Jesus Guadarrama
(“Guadarrama”). Rogers seeks damages as well as
declaratory and injunctive relief from the defendants for
violation of his constitutional rights. The defendants have
filed a Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 25). For the reasons that
follow, the defendants' Motion is GRANTED as to the
request for injunctive relief and DENIED in all other
STANDARD OF REVIEW
withstand a motion to dismiss filed pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), “a complaint must contain
sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state
a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570
(2007)). “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.” Iqbal, 556 U.S.
at 678. The plausibility standard is not a probability
requirement; the pleading must show, not merely allege, that
the pleader is entitled to relief. Id. Legal
conclusions and “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements
of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory
statements, ” are not entitled to a presumption of
truth. Id. However, when reviewing a motion to
dismiss, the court must draw all reasonable inferences in the
non-movant's favor. Graziano v. Pataki, 689 F.3d
110, 114 (2d Cir. 2012).
incidents underlying this action occurred while Rogers was
confined in the Security Risk Group (“SRG”) Phase
Program at the MacDougall-Walker Correctional Institution
(“MacDougall”). See Am. Compl. ¶
11. In 2012, Rogers renounced his SRG affiliation. See
id. ¶ 11. He remained inactive during the events
underlying this action. See id. ¶ 11. Inmates
in the SRG Program attend recreation with their hands cuffed
behind their backs. See id. ¶ 11. They recreate
with other members of the SRG with which they are affiliated.
See id. ¶ 11.
2010 and 2013, Rogers told defendant Weir multiple times that
he was concerned for his safety. See id. ¶ 12.
He submitted many requests to be transferred to protective
custody, which requests defendant Weir denied. See
id. ¶ 12. Instead, Rogers was placed on rec-alone
status. See id. ¶ 12. In 2012, Rogers completed
the SRG Program at Northern Correctional Institution. See
id. ¶ 12.
2013, Rogers was re-affiliated with the SRG Crips and
transferred to MacDougall, the facility at which the SRG
Program was then located. See id. ¶ 13. Rogers
again requested protective custody. See id. ¶
13. Defendant Weir denied the request even though she knew
that, when the program was relocated, rec-alone status was
discontinued. See id. ¶ 13.
September 2013, other Crips members told Rogers to assault
another inmate. See id. ¶ 14. He refused,
claiming he was inactive. See id. ¶ 14. As a
result of the refusal, the Crips put a “hit” on
Rogers. See id. ¶ 14. Defendant Shepard
intercepted a note about the hit being passed between two
Crips members and gave the note to defendants Salius, Doran
and Guadarrama. See id. ¶ 15. They did not
remove Rogers from Crips recreation. See id. ¶
15. Sometime later, Doran told Rogers that he “found
this month[']s hit list, ” but the information
meant nothing to Rogers. See id. ¶ 16.
October 31, 2013, defendant Grasso was supervising Crips
recreation. See id. ¶ 17. He applied handcuffs
to each inmate and escorted them to the recreation yard.
See id. ¶ 17. Rogers believes that while Grasso
was assigned to the SRG unit, several inmates had manipulated
their restraints and used the handcuffs as weapons to assault
other inmates. See id. ¶ 18.
October 31, 2013, one inmate slipped his handcuffs and used
them to assault Rogers while another inmate kicked and
stomped Rogers in the head, neck and face. See id.
¶ 19. Right before the assault, Rogers claims that
defendant Grasso saw the inmate slip his handcuffs and told
him to “make it quick and get on the ground when I call
the code.” See id. ¶ 20. Rogers was
unable to protect himself and suffered multiple injuries.
See id. ¶ 21.
the assault, Rogers was seen in the medical unit where he
received stitches. See id. ¶ 22. Rogers
complained about dizziness and pain in his neck and face, but
Dr. Naqvi did not address these claims. See id.
¶ 22. Rogers returned to the housing unit and was placed
in the same cell, with another Crips member. See id.
¶ 23. Defendants Salius, Doran and Maiorana told Rogers
about finding the note and learning about the hit. See
id. ¶ 23. Defendant Grasso approached Rogers and
tried to explain that he did not set Rogers up. See
id. ¶ 24. He asked Rogers not to sue him. See
id. ¶ 24.
days later, Rogers felt a pop or crack at the base of his
neck and his left arm became numb. See id. ¶
25. Dr. Naqvi prescribed Flexeril, a muscle relaxant, for a
few days. See id. ¶ 26. He said the condition
was not serious and thought Rogers had slept wrong. See
id. ¶ 26. Rogers disagreed with the diagnosis.
See id. ¶ 26. Following the incident, the
medical unit ignored Rogers' complaints. See id.
¶ 27. Nurse LaFrance denied Rogers' requests for
pain medication and, when he told her about the assault, told
him he was overreacting. See id. ¶ 27. She told
him she would order an x-ray, but he did not get one. See
id. ¶ 27.
February 20, 2014, Rogers went to the medical unit. See
id. ¶ 28. He complained of numbness and problems
sleeping and an inability to turn his head to the left
without experiencing shooting pain down his back. See
id. ¶ 28. He was denied a meeting with Nurse
LaFrance. See id. ¶ 28. Later on February 20,
2014, Rogers lay down on the cell floor to “manipulate
a medical code” to obtain medical assistance. See
id. ¶ 29. Defendant Maiorana came to his cell and
told him to stop faking. See id. ¶ 29. When
Rogers would not get up, a lieutenant called a medical code.
See id. ¶ 29. Rogers was sent to St. Francis
Hospital for an x-ray, CAT scan and MRI. See id.
tests showed that Rogers had suffered trauma to his neck,
specifically a fracture at ¶ 1 and disc bulges at ¶
4 and C5. See id. ¶ 31. Rogers was admitted
because he required surgery to have a screw inserted into his
neck. See id. ¶ 32. He was discharged the
following day because the Department of Corrections'
contract for medical services was with the University of
Connecticut, not St. Francis Hospital. See id.
his return to MacDougall, defendants Salius and Maiorana
stated that they knew what Rogers had done. See id.
¶ 34. A few days later, defendant Maiorana told other
inmates that Rogers was a ...