United States District Court, D. Connecticut
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER
VANESSA L. BRYANT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
29, 2017, the Plaintiff, Jose Correa, an inmate currently
confined at MacDougall-Walker Correctional Institution in
Suffield, Connecticut, filed a complaint pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 against Correction Officer McLeod,
Lieutenant Lindsey, Correction Officer Ortyl, Correction
Officer Heinberg, Correction Officer Weir, Correction Officer
Daigle, Correction Officer Pinar, Correction Officer
Beaulier, Correction Officer Cassidy, Correction Officer
Boudreau, Correction Officer Carasquillo, Administrator
Cournoyer,  Deputy Warden Mulligan, Lieutenant Perylo,
and Dr. Wright. The Plaintiff is suing each defendant in his
or her individual and official capacities for violations of
his Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
He is seeking declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief.
For the reasons that follow, his complaint will be dismissed
February 27, 2016, at approximately 4:00 p.m., the Plaintiff
was in the 3-East day room at Northern for recreation, when
correctional officers searched through his cell and
“wreck[ed]” his legal papers. Frustrated, the
plaintiff threw a plastic container at Correction Officer
McLeod, hitting him on the left side of his face. The
Plaintiff immediately lied face-down on the ground in
submission. Nevertheless, Correction Officer John Doe
proceeded to punch and kick the Plaintiff in the ribs. The
Plaintiff was then placed in restraints, and multiple John
Doe officers continuously beat the plaintiff and
“bang[ed]” his head against the concrete floor.
Lieutenants Lindsey and Guimond then sprayed a chemical agent
in the Plaintiff's face. Afterward, the Plaintiff was
denied a shower to wash off the chemical agent, and was also
denied medical care and food. Officers also continued to
p.m., Officer Boudreau “called in a false code, ”
claiming that the Plaintiff was attempting to damage his
restraints, which prompted Lieutenant Perylo to deploy
another chemical agent on the Plaintiff and call him names.
Once again, the Plaintiff was denied a shower to wash off the
agent and was continuously harassed.
Plaintiff wrote multiple inmate request forms and grievances
seeking medical attention, but no one responded. The
Plaintiff later learned that the correctional officers at
Northern were reading his legal mail and telling other
inmates his charges, which the Plaintiff believed put him in
Standard of Law
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, this 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.
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, 555-56 (2007). Conclusory
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.” Bell Atlantic, 550
U.S. at 570. Nevertheless, it is well-established that
“[p]ro 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)).
Plaintiff claims that the officers and staff at Northern
violated his Fourth Amendment rights by unlawfully searching
his cell, reading his mail, and using excessive force against
him, violated his Eighth Amendment right against cruel and
unusual punishment by acting with deliberate indifference to
his safety and medical needs and failing to protect him from
harm, violated his Fifth Amendment rights, and unlawfully
discriminating against him on the basis of his race.
is well settled . . . that personal involvement of defendants
in alleged constitutional deprivations is a prerequisite to
an award of damages under § 1983.” Wright v.
Smith, 21 F.3d 496, 501 (2d Cir. 1994) (internal
quotation marks omitted); see also Johnson v. Glick,
481 F.2d 1028, 1034 (2d Cir. 1973) (doctrine of
respondeat superior does not suffice for claim of
monetary damages under § 1983). A plaintiff who sues a
supervisory official for monetary damages must allege that
the official was “personally involved” in the
constitutional deprivation in one of four ways: (1) the
official directly participated in the deprivation; (2) the
official learned about the deprivation through a report or
appeal and failed to remedy the wrong; (3) the official
created or perpetuated a policy or custom under which
unconstitutional practices occurred; or (4) the official was
grossly negligent in managing subordinates who caused the
unlawful condition or event. Wright, 21 F.3d at 501;
Hernandez v. Keane, 341 F.3d 137, 145 (2d Cir.
2003). In addition, the plaintiff must allege a causal link
between the conduct of the supervisory official, or lack
thereof, and the injury. See Poe v. Leonard, 282
F.3d 123, 140 (2d Cir. 2002).
only Defendants mentioned in the Plaintiff's statement of
facts are Lieutenant Perylo, Lieutenant Guimond, Lieutenant
Lindsey, Correction Officer McLeod, Correction Officer
Boudreau, and several unnamed correction officers identified
only as John Does. Thus, aside from these individuals, all
claims against Defendants listed in this action are DISMISSED
for lack of personal involvement.
the Plaintiff does not explain how Officer McLeod was
involved in the attack or denial of care thereafter. He only
alleges that McLeod was hit in the face by the plastic
container thrown by the Plaintiff. Therefore, the claims
against Officer McLeod are also DISMISSED.
Claims Against Defendants in their Official
extent that the Plaintiff seeks money 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); Quern v. Jordan,
440 U.S. 332, 342 ...