United States District Court, D. Connecticut
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER
R. UNDERHILL, JUDGE
Milner (“Milner”), currently confined at Northern
Correctional Institution in Somers, Connecticut, filed an
amended complaint pro se under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
alleging that he was denied adequate medical care. The named
defendants are Northern Correctional Institution
(“Northern”), William Mulligan
(“Mulligan”), Captain Jason Cahill
(“Cahill”), Lieutenant David Josefiak
(“Josefiak”), Lieutenant Sean Guimond
(“Guimond”), Officer Alex Collins
(“Collins”), Officer Bogan (“Bogan”),
Officer Sanchez (“Sanchez”), Nurse Kristen
Carabine (“Carabine”), the City of Somers and
28 U.S.C. § 1915A, I 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 plausible right to relief. Bell Atl.
Corp. 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. 2006)); see also Tracy v. Freshwater,
623 F.3d 90, 101-02 (2d Cir. 2010) (discussing special rules
of solicitude for pro se litigants).
is a pretrial detainee. He suffers from a seizure disorder.
Milner was housed in the first phase of the administrative
segregation program at Northern at the time of the incident.
Although all other inmates in that phase of the
administrative segregation program are single-celled, Milner
was provided a cellmate because of his seizure disorder.
21, 2016, at 9:40 a.m., Milner began experiencing a metallic
taste, dizziness and blurred vision. All three symptoms are
preliminary indicators of a seizure. Milner pressed the
emergency call button in his cell to obtain medical
assistance. Milner told Bogan, the main control officer,
about the seizure indicators. Approximately five minutes
later, Milner's cellmate again pressed the emergency call
button. The second call was ignored.
tried to abate the symptoms by splashing water on his face.
Milner's cellmate asked other inmates to press the
emergency call button in their cells because Bogan did not
respond to the cellmate's attempts to get medical
assistance for Milner. These calls were ignored.
a.m., property officer Melendez entered the tier.
Milner's cellmate yelled that Milner had fallen and
nearly hit his head on the bunk. Officer Melendez went to the
cell and saw Milner on the floor experiencing a seizure.
Defendants Bogan, Collins and Sanchez did not tour the unit
at any time while Milner was experiencing a seizure.
Department of Correction policy requires that unit tours be
conducted every fifteen minutes.
Melendez called a code white, a medical emergency code.
Although she was aware of Milner's condition, Carabine
casually walked into the unit in response to the code. She
did not run as she should have in response to a medical
approximately 10:30 a.m., Josefiak and Guimond came to the
housing unit to conduct an informal investigation. They
questioned Milner's cellmate regarding the incident.
Josefiak and Guimond ignored the cellmate's statements
and prepared reports to cover up the lack of unit tours and
failure to respond to emergency calls. Despite the lack of
confirmation in the medical records, Mulligan approved the
report entry that Bogan had contacted the medical unit three
minutes before the code was called. Cahill, the shift
captain, participated in the cover-up by stating that all
policies were followed.
the seizure, Milner's head repeatedly hit the floor,
causing a laceration near his eye. Milner was sent to an
outside hospital for treatment.
original complaint, Milner states that he was only bringing
an Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to
serious medical needs. In the introduction to the amended
complaint, he seeks to add Americans with Disabilities Act
and equal protection claims. Milner lists five causes of
action in the amended complaint: deliberate indifference to a
serious medical need, failure to protect, failure to
supervise, falsely reporting the incident, and ADA
Northern Correctional Institution
includes Northern as a defendant. The Department of
Correction, a state agency, is not a person within the
meaning of section 1983. See Will v. Michigan Dep't
of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 70-71 (1989); Angileri
v. Wu, 2016 WL 3579073, at *3 (D. Conn. June 28, 2016)
(as a state agency, Department of Correction is not a person
within the meaning of section 1983). As a unit of the
Department of Correction, Northern also is not a person
within the meaning of section 1983. See Santos v.
Connecticut Dep't of Corr., 2005 WL 2123543, at *3
(D. Conn. Aug, 19, 2005) (observing that “neither a
Department of Correction nor a correctional institution is a
‘person'” subject to liability under section
1983). Accordingly, all section 1983 claims against Northern
are dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1).
Town of Somers and Tolland County
names the Town of Somers and Tolland County as defendants
because Northern is located in that town and county. He
states in his description of parties that those towns are
responsible for ensuring that Northern is ADA-compliant.
Milner provides no authority for his assumption that the
municipality or county has authority to direct the actions of
state officials in a state correctional facility and research
reveals none. Further, I determine below that Milner fails to
state a cognizable ADA claim, because there is no ...