United States District Court, D. Connecticut
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER
Michael P. Shea, United States District Judge
Christopher Brown, previously incarcerated at the
Corrigan-Radgowski Correctional Center in Uncasville,
Connecticut, and now incarcerated at a facility in Chesire,
Connecticut, filed this case pro se under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983, asserting claims for deliberate indifference to
safety and unconstitutional conditions of confinement. The
plaintiff names five defendants: Warden Antonio Santiago, who
was the warden at Corrigan “at the times the actions in
this complaint took place” (ECF No. 1 at 1), Warden
Faucher, who was the warden at Corrigan when the lawsuit was
filed, Director of Offender Classification and Population
Management David Maiga, District Administrator Edward
Maldonado, and Captain Daniel Dauherty, who worked at
Corrigan at the relevant times. All defendants are named in
individual and official capacities. The complaint was
received by the Court on August 23, 2017. The plaintiff's
motion to proceed in forma pauperis was granted on
August 24, 2017. (ECF No. 6.)
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. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. In
reviewing a pro se complaint, the Court must assume
the truth of the allegations, and interpret them liberally to
“raise the strongest arguments [they] suggest.”
Abbas v. Dixon, 480 F.3d 636, 639 (2d Cir. 2007).
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 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. 2006)); see
also Tracy v. Freshwater, 623 F.3d 90, 101-02 (2d Cir.
2010) (discussing special rules of solicitude for pro
August 2016, the plaintiff was acquitted in state court on a
charge of assault. Defendant Dauherty testified at the trial.
After the plaintiff was found not guilty because he was
acting in self-defense, he was returned to Corrigan. Upon his
arrival, defendant Dauherty told the plaintiff that he had
something special in store for the plaintiff now that he was
back at Corrigan. Three days later the plaintiff was
assaulted by two Latin King members.
Director of Offender Classification and Population
Management, defendant Maiga is responsible for determining
the housing assignments for each inmate and ensuring that the
housing assignments are in accord with any separation orders
in the inmate's file. Defendant Dauherty is an
intelligence officer, in charge of supervising all gang block
plaintiff was assigned to H-pod at Corrigan. The plaintiff
was assaulted by two Latin King gang members three days after
his arrival at H-pod. (It is not clear whether this alleged
assault is different from the one mentioned above.) The
plaintiff alleges that he had a documented profile with one
of the inmates who attacked him and contends that defendants
Santiago and Dauherty arranged his placement in H-pod.
plaintiff was taken to the restrictive housing unit pending
resolution of the disciplinary charge for fighting. A
correctional officer who witnessed the assault stated in his
incident report that the plaintiff was assaulted by the other
inmates and was just defending himself. After the
investigation was completed, the disciplinary charge was
dismissed. The plaintiff remained in restrictive housing for
only one day. Investigating officials also determined that
the plaintiff had a separation profile with one of the
assailants and should not have been housed in the unit, or
even the same correctional facility, as that inmate.
the assault, the plaintiff began experiencing headaches and
blackouts, sometimes lasting for hours. Although the
plaintiff submitted many request forms, he was not seen by a
doctor. After threatening legal action, the plaintiff was
seen by a doctor on August 6, 2017.
plaintiff filed a grievance about his assignment to Corrigan.
In response, the warden indicated that staff at Corrigan did
not become aware that the plaintiff has been involved in an
altercation with the other inmate until January 27, 2017.
However, the incident occurred on January 12, 2017, and the
plaintiff alleges that the necessary information was in the
plaintiff's file. District Administrator Maldonado denied
the grievance appeal. The plaintiff also submitted an inmate
request seeking transfer to another facility. His request and
subsequent grievance were denied. (On September 19, 2017, the
Court received a letter from the plaintiff (ECF No. 8)
indicating that he had been transferred to Cheshire.)
time the plaintiff was sent to restrictive housing he was
assigned a cell with an “agitated, hostile, and
dangerous” inmate. ECF No. 1, ¶ 46. He had to
fight to defend himself from being assaulted by his
in restrictive housing in January 2017 were not provided
winter gear to attend recreation, which is held outside.
Inmates in general population were permitted to wear their
own sneakers, boots, or sweatsuits, to attend recreation. The
plaintiff alleges that inmates in restrictive housing are not
allowed access to their own clothing and must wear the thin
jumpsuit and thin shoes that are provided, but attaches to
the complaint a grievance response stating that inmates may
wear their own footwear. ECF No. 1 at 64-65. Gloves and hat
are not provided.
plaintiff argues that the defendants were deliberately
indifferent to his safety and subjected him to
unconstitutional conditions of confinement. Although he
alleges that he was not provided proper medical care for his