United States District Court, D. Connecticut
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER
C. Hall, United States District Judge.
1, 2017, the plaintiff, Kelvin Manon (“Manon”),
an inmate currently housed at MacDougall-Walker Correctional
Institution in Suffield, CT
(“MacDougall-Walker”), filed a Complaint pro
se pursuant to title 42, section 1983 of the United
States Code (“section 1983”) against Correction
Officer Brantly, Correction Officer James, Warden
Chapdelaine, Deputy Warden Guadarrama, Deputy Warden Hynes,
Counselor Moore, and “C.T.O.” Perry for monetary
and injunctive relief. Manon is suing the defendants for
acting with deliberate indifference to his safety and for
violating his due process rights.
court denied Manon's Motion to Proceed in forma
pauperis because his application showed that he had more
than sufficient funds to pay the $400.00 filing fee to
commence this action. See Order #6. On June 16,
2017, Manon paid the filing fee to proceed with his case.
reasons articulated below, his Complaint is dismissed in
STANDARD OF REVIEW
to title 28, section 1915A of the United States Code, this
court must review prisoner civil complaints and dismiss any
portion of a 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. 18 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). Although
detailed allegations are not required, a 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.” Twombly, 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.
31, 2016, Correction Officer Brantly propped open Manon's
cell door, which permitted another inmate to enter
Manon's cell and assault him. Correction Officer James
also witnessed the incident. Afterward, Brantly wrote a
disciplinary report in which he falsely stated that the
physical altercation occurred in the dayroom outside of
Manon's cell, despite the fact that James had told him
that the altercation occurred inside the cell. The incident
was not investigated.
next day, Manon submitted a written request to Captain Paine
to preserve the video surveillance footage of the incident,
but Captain Paine refused to produce the footage, stating
that he could not review it without a court order. Manon then
wrote to Counselor Moore who refused to provide the video
footage because Manon's request “was not received
in the [required] time frame.”
August 11, 2016, Lieutenant Diaz told Manon that he had
reviewed the video and had seen the other inmate enter
Manon's cell. Diaz said that she knew Manon was not at
fault and “wrote that on her report.”
August 16, 2016, Manon requested assistance from
“C.T.O.” Perry. Specifically, Manon requested
that Perry “take notes of the things [he] needed . . .
to defend [him]self” at the disciplinary hearing,
review the video from the incident, and determine how much
time elapsed after the other inmate entered his cell before
any prison official noticed. He also asked her to take a
statement from his cell mate, Paredes. Perry did not honor
any of Manon's requests.
Manon wrote to Warden Chapdelaine and Deputy Wardens
Guadarrama and Hynes on August 19, 2016, requesting all
written reports of the July 31 incident, but he never
received a response from any of them. That same day, Manon
was moved to Q-Pod, a unit that houses inmates who have been
sanctioned for disciplinary reports. The Q-Pod unit also has
inadequate plumbing, which created “a serious threat to
[Manon's] physical and mental well being . . . .” A
few weeks later, he was moved to N-Pod, a similar unit.
There, Manon learned that the inmate who had assaulted him
had not been issued a disciplinary report.
September 22, 2016, Manon submitted a grievance for prison
officials' failure to respond to his requests for
information about the incident, which was later rejected.
That same week, he was moved to another disciplinary housing
September 29, 2016, Manon was transferred to general
population and placed in a cell adjacent to where the inmate
who had assaulted him was staying. Manon feared for his
safety because the other inmate had “access to the same
things as [him].” Manon believes that the decision not
to discipline the other inmate is part of a conspiracy to
cover up the July 31 incident.
November 8, he requested from Counselor Moore copies of
reports on the July 31 incident and information regarding his
disciplinary ticket. Three months later, Manon received the
requested information, but he “felt like [he] was given
what [officials] wanted [him] to see only and not all of
it.” Lieutenant Diaz's report, which allegedly
stated that he had seen the other inmate enter Manon's
cell on July 31, was not included in the information provided
to Manon. None of the reports given to Manon state that he
had a physical altercation with another inmate. Three prison
officials reported that the video footage taken of the
incident do not capture the physical altercation because
there was a pillar blocking the view of the camera lens.
is suing defendants Brantly, James, Chapdelaine, Guadarrama,
and Hynes for acting with deliberate indifference to his
safety, in violation of his Eighth Amendment protection
against cruel and unusual punishment. He is suing defendants
Moore and Perry for violating his procedural due process
rights based on their failure to assist him in procuring
evidence in his defense against the disciplinary sanctions
imposed by prison officials. To remedy these alleged