United States District Court, D. Connecticut
RICHARD R. QUINT, Plaintiff,
COMMISSIONER SEMPLE, et al., Defendants.
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER
VANESSA L. BRYANT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Richard R. Quint is incarcerated at the MacDougall
Correctional Institution in Suffield, Connecticut. He has
filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against
Commissioner Semple, Warden Mulligan, Deputy Warden Hines,
Captain Rivera, Counselor Supervisors Weldon and Calderon,
Dr. Coleman, Lieutenant John Doe and Correctional Officers
John Doe. For the reasons set forth below, the complaint is
dismissed with leave to amend.
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 Plaintiff pleads factual
content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
inference that 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 still include sufficient factual allegations
to meet the standard of facial plausibility. See Harris
v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir. 2009) (citations
claims that prison officials at MacDougall placed him in a
cell with an inmate who smelled strongly of Bengay. When
Plaintiff asked to be moved to another cell, officers moved
him to the restrictive housing unit. While in the restrictive
housing unit, Plaintiff suffered a nervous breakdown.
tried to hang himself. When Lieutenant John Doe arrived, he
sprayed Plaintiff in the face with mace. After officers
gained control over Plaintiff, they put him in the shower for
several minutes to rinse his face, but this only further
activated the residue of mace that was left on his face.
then escorted Plaintiff to a cell in the medical unit for
observation. During his confinement in the medical unit cell,
officials removed Plaintiff's shoes and forced him to
wear a gown and eat meals with his hands. At some point,
Plaintiff stopped eating for thirteen days. When Commissioner
Semple became aware of the potential dangers to
Plaintiff's health due to plaintiff's refusal to eat
or drink, he sought an order in state court to force feed
officers transferred Plaintiff to a cell in the restrictive
housing unit, Plaintiff suffered a cut to his head when he
hit his head on a cell door. After he arrived in the
restrictive housing unit, officers sprayed him with mace.
then escorted Plaintiff back to the medical unit, placed him
on a bed in a cell and applied restraints to his ankles and
wrists. Hours later, officials downgraded Plaintiff to
in-cell restraints. Officers applied restraints to
Plaintiff's ankles and wrists too tightly. Plaintiff was
unable to fully stand up because the tether chain around his
waist was so short. He remained in restraints for over
eighteen hours. The restraints caused Plaintiff's right
ankle to become swollen and painful. At some point,
Lieutenant John Doe loosened the restraints.
Official Capacity Claims
seeks seeks monetary damages and declaratory and injunctive
relief. To the extent that he seeks monetary damages from
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
Defendants in their official capacities are dismissed
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(2).
Commissioner Semple and Lieutenant John Doe
claims that he refused to eat for thirteen days. In response
to this behavior and the potential impact of this behavior on
Plaintiff's health, Commissioner Semple filed an action
in state court seeking a court order to force-feed Plaintiff.
allegations suggest that Commissioner Semple sought the court
order regarding feeding Plaintiff because Plaintiff's
health was in jeopardy. In the state court action, Semple
v. Quint, HHD-CV17-6079477-S, the judge granted the
application for an immediate ex parte temporary injunction to
prevent Quint from interfering with medical treatment
including intravenous fluids and/or nourishment,
nasal-gastric feeding and any other health care measures
necessary to preserve Quint's life or prevent physical
harm to him. See Appl. ...