Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Cruz-Droz v. Marquis

United States District Court, D. Connecticut

December 27, 2017

JONATHAN CRUZ-DROZ, Plaintiff,
v.
LIEUTENANT MARQUIS, et al., Defendants.

          INITIAL REVIEW ORDER RE AMENDED COMPLAINT

          MICHAEL P. SHEA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Plaintiff Jonathan Cruz-Droz, currently incarcerated at the Corrigan-Radgowski Correctional Center in Uncasville, Connecticut, filed this case pro se under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 asserting claims for violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. On September 11, 2017, the Court filed an Initial Review Order directing the plaintiff to file an amended complaint. The Court explained that the original complaint did not contain a short and plain statement of the plaintiff's claim as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) and did not appear to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20's requirements concerning party joinder. The Court directed the plaintiff to file an amended complaint that identified the distinct claims he was pursuing against each defendant and set forth the facts supporting each claim.

         The plaintiff filed his amended complaint on September 25, 2017. He has chosen not to use the amended complaint form provided to him to clearly set forth his claims. The plaintiff lists a few defendants in the caption on the form and a few others in the body of the form. He includes within the pages appended to the amended complaint form a list entitled “Defendant Im Suing and Adding to list.” ECF No. 10 at 11. The list contains forty names. The Court assumes that these are the defendants he seeks to include in this case. From Cheshire Correctional Institution, the plaintiff names Lieutenant Marquis, C/O Kuningham, Lieutenant Rule, Lieutenant Vazquez, Lieutenant Castro, Lieutenant Rosado, C/O Williams, C/O Abromonte, Captain Watson, C/O Nogunra, Investigator Boyed, A.R.C. Rious, Investigator Kelly, F.O.I. McMahonan, Doe 1, Doe 2, and Psychiatrist Doe 13. From Corrigan Correctional Center, the plaintiff lists F.O.I. Ilvento, C. Ward, and Nurse Doe 11. From MacDougall Correctional Institution, the plaintiff lists Lieutenant Davis, Lieutenant Calderon, C/O Burgos, Deputy Warden Doe 5, Counselor Doe 4, C.O Cheany, C/O Facey, C/O Skully, Lieutenant Harris, Counselor Stanley, F.O.I. Liaison, A.R.C. Bennett, Psychiatrist Doe 9, Psychologist Doe 10, Medical Staff Doe 8, Mental Health Rosado, Captain Doe 7, C/O Doe 3, C/O Doe 6, and Nurse Doe 12.

         Rather than setting forth a clear statement of his claim, the plaintiff has appended to his amended complaint fifteen pages on which he lists a few defendants at the top of the page and then describes events occurring on various dates that relate to those persons. ECF No.10 at 12-26. The contents of the pages are summarized below.

         The plaintiff identifies defendants Williams, Marquis, Rule, Doe 1, Kuningham, and Vazquez on pages 12 and 13. He states that he is asserting claims of excessive force, harassment and fabrication against them. He alleges that, on July 1, 2017, he was released from restrictive housing. Defendants Williams and Doe 1 assigned him a cell with an inmate who immediately began threatening him. The plaintiff informed defendants Doe 1 and Williams about the threats. Defendant Marquis was called to the cell to deal with the cellmate. Instead, defendant Marquis forcefully pinned the plaintiff against the bubble and handcuffed him. The plaintiff was compliant at all times. Even though defendants Williams and Doe 1 tried to explain that the plaintiff was not the reason defendant Marquis had been summoned, the plaintiff was taken to restrictive housing. En route defendant Kuningham twisted his arm. When the plaintiff complained, defendant Marquis sprayed him with a chemical agent. The plaintiff was placed on in-cell restraints and issued a false disciplinary report for refusing housing.

         The plaintiff also alleges that, on March 21, 2017, defendant Rule approached the plaintiff's cell door and asked him to sign a disciplinary report. The plaintiff explained to defendant Rule that he was being harassed by staff and described the procedures he had taken to address the issue. Defendant Rule was not interested and threatened the plaintiff if he did not sign the disciplinary report. Defendant Rule again threatened the plaintiff if he refused to sign an allegedly false disciplinary report on May 30, 2017. On July 19, 2017, defendant Vazquez issued the plaintiff a false disciplinary report for making vulgar comments. The charge was dismissed.

         The plaintiff lists defendants Rosado, Abromonte, Castro, Nogunra, Watson, Doe 2, and Psychiatrist Doe 13 on pages 14 and 15. He alleges that, on May 29, 2017, he spoke to defendant Castro about someone pouring liquid detergent on his television and electronic items. Defendant Castro did not prepare an incident report. The plaintiff also complained to defendants Rosado, Watson and McMahonan but nothing was done. On May 30, 2017, as he was walking to the dining hall, defendant Abromonte began harassing and laughing at the plaintiff. He then searched the plaintiff, took his identification, and fabricated a disciplinary charge which was later dismissed. Defendant Rule also harassed the plaintiff. When the plaintiff spoke to defendant Rosado about defendant Abromonte's actions, defendant Rosado failed to address or report them. On July 2, 2017, when the plaintiff was on in-cell restraints, defendant Rosado entered the cell, mocked the plaintiff, and refused the plaintiff's request to have the restraints removed.

         The plaintiff also alleges that defendant Nogunra came to his cell door and stated that he heard that excessive force and a chemical agent had been used against the plaintiff. On June 1, 2017, the plaintiff wrote to defendant Psychiatrist Doe 13 seeking mental health treatment. He alleges that she only understood his need for mental health treatment after staff used excessive force against him.

         On pages 16 and 17, the plaintiff lists defendants McMahonan, Boyed, Rious, Ilvento, and Kelly. He lists June 1, 2017, June 3, 2017, July 1, 2017, July 3, 2017, July 7, 2017, and July 21, 2017, as relevant dates. The plaintiff alleges that he submitted a request for camera preservation to defendant McMahonan. She held the request for a time and responded that the request was forwarded to defendant Boyed who then responded that the request was untimely.

         On July 3, 2017, the plaintiff was explaining to defendant Kelly that he had not refused housing and complained about the use of excessive force by defendants Marquis and Kuningham. Defendant Kelly refused to listen to all of the plaintiff's complaints and did not investigate the incident properly. Defendant Kelly told the plaintiff that he would be found guilty of the charge and recommended that he sign the disciplinary report. The plaintiff alleges that he submitted grievances about harassment, discrimination, fabrication, excessive force, and defamation. Someone responded that the grievance was not properly submitted because the plaintiff did not attach the inmate request. The plaintiff does not mention any defendant in connection with these allegations.

         The plaintiff identifies defendants Davis, Calderon, Burgos, Deputy Warden Doe 5, Doe 4, and Doe 3 in connection with the claims on pages 18 and 19. The plaintiff alleges that, on February 29, 2017, he wrote to defendant Davis complaining about harassment by defendants Facey and Scully and threats from his cellmate. Defendant Davis witnessed the cellmate's hostility toward the plaintiff. On March 12, 2017, the plaintiff informed defendant Calderon about harassment and threats by his cellmate and other inmates. On March 20, 2017, the plaintiff was awakened by his cellmate screaming threats against him. Defendant Doe 3 did not tour the unit as he should have during the hour that the plaintiff's cellmate was threatening him. When the plaintiff tried to speak with defendant Doe 4 about the incident, she said not then but told him to come to her office after lunch. When the plaintiff went to defendant Doe 4's office, she denied asking him to come. The plaintiff asked to speak with defendant Calderon because he had submitted requests to defendant Burgos. Defendant Doe 4 told the plaintiff to pack his property to move to a different cell. While he was doing so, other inmates called the plaintiff names and threatened him. Defendant Burgos did nothing.

         The plaintiff states that, while he was in restrictive housing on March 28, 2017, he spoke to defendant Deputy Warden Doe 5 about the constant harassment, fabrication, discrimination and defamation. Deputy Warden Doe 5 merely asked the plaintiff if he wanted to return to O-pod and walked away. On March 15, 2017, the plaintiff asked for a copy of a grievance he was submitting against defendant Davis and signed a receipt to have his inmate account charged for the copy. An unidentified person returned the request form to the plaintiff stating it was complete without copies or postage. Defendant Doe 4 informed defendant Davis that the plaintiff was submitting a grievance against her.

         Pages 20 and 21 concerns defendants Cheany, Facey, Skully, Harris, Stanley, and Doe 6. On February 17, 2017, defendant Facey locked the cell door in his face when he was about to leave the cell to attend recreation. She refused to permit the plaintiff to leave his cell to shower. When defendant Skully walked by, the plaintiff asked to be let out, but defendant Skully said that defendant Facey said no. Defendant Doe 6 also refused to release the plaintiff. After fifty minutes of the one hour recreation period had passed, the plaintiff's cell door was opened. The plaintiff challenged defendant Facey's ability to prevent him from attending recreation. Defendant Skully said that she could do so.

         On April 6, 2017, defendant Cheany permitted another inmate to enter the plaintiff's cell and extort him. When the plaintiff complained, defendant Cheany did nothing, so the plaintiff reported the conduct. On April 20, 2017, defendant Cheany said something to another inmate while the plaintiff was showering. The inmate mocked and laughed at the plaintiff. The plaintiff ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.