United States District Court, D. Connecticut
DAVID A. ABRAMS, No. 241224, a/k/a ABRAHAMS, Plaintiff,
CORRECTIONS OFFICER WATERS AND CAPT. NUNEZ, sued in their individual capacities; CORRECTIONS OFFICER PHILLIPS; DISCIPLINARY REPORT INVESTIGATOR KELLY; CAPT. JOHN WATSON; WARDEN SCOTT ERFE; MAINTENANCE SUPERVISOR JOHN DOE; and MAILROOM HANDLER CORRECTIONS OFFICER RAMIREZ, sued in their individual and official capacity, Defendants.
CHARLES S. HAIGHT, JR. Senior United States District Judge.
se plaintiff David A. Abrams, currently incarcerated at
the Corrigan-Radgowski Correctional Institution in
Uncasville, Connecticut, has brought this civil rights action
against various prison officials and employees of the prison
where he was formerly housed, Cheshire Correctional
Institution in Cheshire, Connecticut. He sues these
defendants in their individual and/or official capacities,
seeking damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and recovery in
tort. The defendants include Corrections Officer
Waters, Captain Nunez, Corrections Officer Phillips,
Investigator Kelly, Captain Watson, Warden Erfe, Supervisor
John Doe, and Corrections Officer Ramirez (herein
October 27, 2017, in light of two prior violent incidents
with cellmates, Abrams moved for a preliminary injunction
[Doc. 6], requesting that he be placed in a one-man cell to
prevent any future attacks by a cellmate upon
In particular, Abrams claims that he suffers from
"paranoia, trust issues, and lack of sleep" due to
these prior attacks. Doc. 6-1, at 5. Consequently, on Oct. 23,
2017, he consulted a "mental health doctor who stated
that it's normal for [Abrams] to be on alert and paranoid
due to the trauma [he] suffered." Doc. 6, ¶ 18. The
doctor also allegedly diagnosed Abrams as a "3" on
a scale of 1 to 5 in mental health and recommended that
Abrams be given "single cell status." Id.,
¶ 19. Abrams argues that "[w]ith single-cell
status, there's no worry of a cellmate attack and one can
sleep comfortably and live stress-free." Doc. 6-1, at 3.
is presently housed in a two-man cell in Corrigan prison. He
has neither specified the identity nor the security-risk
rating of his current cellmate.
address and expedite resolution of the pending motion for
injunctive relief, the Court will order Defendants to show
cause why Plaintiffs prayed for preliminary injunction should
not be issued. Specifically, Defendants will be required to
file responsive papers to the motion, presenting their
arguments regarding why this Court should deny Plaintiffs
request for "single-cell status." In so doing,
Defendants must address the requisite standard for a
preliminary injunction in the Second Circuit. That standard
provides: "A party seeking a preliminary injunction must
ordinarily establish (1) irreparable harm; (2) either (a) a
likelihood of success on the merits, or (b) sufficiently
serious questions going to the merits of its claims to make
them fair ground for litigation, plus a balance of the
hardships tipping decidedly in favor of the moving party; and
(3) that a preliminary injunction is in the public
interest." New York ex rel. Schneiderman v. Actavis
PLC, 787 F.3d 638, 650 (2d Cir. 2015) (citing Oneida
Nation of New York v. Cuomo, 645 F.3d 154, 164 (2d Cir.
2011)), cert. dismissed sub nom. Allergan PLC v. New York
ex. rel. Schneiderman, ___ U.S. ___ 136 S.Ct. 581
(2015). See also Cacchillo v. Insmed, Inc., 638 F.3d
401, 405-06 (2d Cir. 2011) (same).
the case is currently in its preliminary stages, no Defendant
has yet been served or entered an appearance in this action.
Under Rule 65, captioned "Injunctions and Restraining
Orders, " "[t]he court may issue a preliminary
injunction only on notice to the adverse party."
Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(a)(1). Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as
1. The Clerk shall: (1) verify the current work addresses for
each Defendant in this action with the Connecticut Department
of Correction Office of Legal Affairs; and (2) send by
certified mail a copy of the Complaint [Doc. 1], Plaintiffs
motion for preliminary injunction [Doc. 6 & 6-1], and
this Order to all Defendants on or before Thursday,
November 9, 2017.
2. Defendants are hereby ORDERED to SHOW CAUSE why Plaintiffs
motion for preliminary injunctive relief should not be
granted. In particular, they must each enter an appearance,
or that of counsel, and file responsive papers to the motion
[Doc. 6] on or before Monday, November 27,
3. Plaintiff may, if he so chooses, reply to Defendants'
responsive papers on or before Monday, December 4,
4. Upon review of the parties' submissions, the Court
will determine whether it will hold a hearing on the motion
for preliminary injunction or will rule based on the evidence
presented in the parties' filed papers.
the parties are advised that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915A(b), the Court will soon enter an "Initial Review
Order" ("IRO") of the Complaint as a separate
order. At that time, the Court will publish the results of
its mandatory screening review of this prisoner civil
complaint, dismissing any portion that "is frivolous,
malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted, " or "seeks monetary relief from a
defendant who is immune from such relief." 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(b)(1)-(2). Because, within the time frame of the
dates addressed by this Order, the IRO may dismiss claims
and/or the action in its entirety against certain Defendants,
the Court clarifies that any Defendants dismissed from the
action will, of course, no longer be required to show cause
with respect to the motion for preliminary injunction. In
addition, upon entry of the IRO, the Court will set the case
deadlines for any Defendants in the action to respond to the
Complaint, the parties to complete discovery, and the parties
to submit dispositive motions.
foregoing is So Ordered.