United States District Court, D. Connecticut
KYRON M. SANDS, Plaintiff,
DEPUTY WARDEN MUDANO, et al., Defendants.
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER RE AMENDED COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO
28 U.S.C. § 1915A
Jeffrey Alker Meyer United States District Judge
January 19, 2017, the Court filed an Initial Review Order
directing service of the complaint on all defendants except
Mudano and Iozzia and affording plaintiff an opportunity to
file an amended complaint to allege facts supporting his
claim against these two defendants. Doc. #7. Plaintiff has
filed a motion to amend accompanied by an amended complaint.
Doc. #21. The proposed amended complaint lists all original
defendants and one new defendant, State Police Trooper
Garnett. Plaintiff's motion to amend will be granted, and
this ruling reviews the adequacy of the new allegations in
the amended complaint.
names twelve defendants, Deputy Warden Guiliana Mudano,
Lieutenants Iozzia and Meeker, Judicial Marshalls Gregory
Seely and Secondi, Correctional Officers Muckle, Miller,
Duggan, Messier and Stadalnik, Nurse Chuck Evans and State
Trooper Garnett. The claims against defendants Meeker, Seely,
Secondi, Muckle, Miller, Duggan, Messier, Stadalnik and Evans
are the same claims included in the original complaint and
will not be repeated here.
following allegations relating to defendants Mudano, Iozzia
and Garnett from plaintiff's amended complaint are
accepted as true for purposes of the Court's review.
the assault by the other defendants, Iozzia told plaintiff to
stand up, be quiet and listen to the officers or he would be
sprayed with a chemical agent. Doc. #21-1 at 9 (¶ 45).
Plaintiff told Iozzia that he had been assaulted by the
defendants while handcuffed and was bleeding and in pain.
Id. (¶ 46). Instead of assisting plaintiff,
Iozzia told him to stop resisting and yelling. Id.
(¶ 47). Plaintiff asked to see mental health staff but
Iozzia denied the request. Id. at 10 (¶¶
48-49). Plaintiff then threatened a lawsuit. Id.
(¶ 50). Iozzia ordered plaintiff brought into the
correctional facility and placed in a holding cell.
Id. (¶¶ 52-54).
he was in the holding cell for about an hour, defendant
Garnett came to the admitting and processing area and spoke
with defendants Iozzia and Seely. Id. at 12 (¶
74). Defendant Garnett told plaintiff that he was being
charged with assault. Id. at 13 (¶ 76).
Plaintiff stated that defendant Garnett had been given false
information and asked that he speak to the other inmates on
the van and review video footage before arresting him.
Defendant Garnett was not interested in plaintiff's
explanation. Id. at 13-14 (¶¶ 77-79,
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), the 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. The
Court must accept as true all factual matters alleged in a
complaint, although a complaint may not survive unless its
factual recitations state a claim to relief that is plausible
on its face. See, e.g., Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662, 678 (2009); Mastafa v. Chevron Corp., 770 F.3d
170, 177 (2d Cir. 2014) (same). Nevertheless, it is
well-established that “pro 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)); see also Tracy v. Freshwater,
623 F.3d 90, 101-02 (2d Cir. 2010) (discussing special rules
of solicitude for pro se litigants).
was given leave to amend his complaint to allege facts
against defendants Mudano and Iozzia. He has alleged no facts
against defendant Mudano. Therefore, all claims against
defendant Mudano remain dismissed.
alleges that defendant Iozzia was deliberately indifferent to
his safety. Prison officials have a duty to make reasonable
efforts to ensure inmate safety. To establish a
constitutional violation, an inmate must show that the
conditions of his incarceration posed a substantial risk of
serious harm and that prison officials were deliberately
indifferent to his safety. See Farmer v. Brennan,
511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). Deliberate indifference exists if
prison officials know of and disregard an excessive risk to
inmate safety. See Id. at 837; Bridgewater v.
Taylor, 698 F.Supp.2d 351, 358 (S.D.N.Y. 2010)
(explaining that defendants must be aware of facts supporting
an inference that harm would occur and must actually draw
alleges that defendant Iozzia was aware of but ignored that
other defendants were assaulting plaintiff and that he failed
to immediately stop the assault or ensure that plaintiff
received proper medical and mental health treatment. This
allegation is sufficient to state a claim for deliberate
indifference to safety.
also names Garnett who was described in the original
complaint but not named as a defendant. Plaintiff alleges
that Garnett arrested him for assault based on information
from Iozzia and Seely. Plaintiff complains that Garnett did
not believe plaintiff's statements or verify the
information he had been given by interviewing other inmates
on the van or by reviewing surveillance footage. These
allegations do not suffice to establish a claim against
Garnett. If a law enforcement official has probable cause to
arrest someone, the Constitution does not require that the
official first conduct an exhaustive investigation to
determine if there is additional evidence that may be
exculpatory. See Garcia v. Does, 779 F.3d 84, 93 (2d
Cir. 2015). Nor must a law enforcement official necessarily
credit an arrestee's explanations or protestations of
innocence. See Pannetta v. Crowley, 460 F.3d 388,
398 (2d Cir. 2006).
plaintiff's amended complaint seeks injunctive relief.
But because plaintiff is no longer at the same correctional
facility (Doc. #22), any claim for injunctive relief is moot.
See Salahuddin v. Goord, 467 F.3d 263, 272 (2d Cir.
2011). Accordingly, this action shall proceed solely against