United States District Court, D. Connecticut
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER
C. HALL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
November 27, 2017, the plaintiff, Christopher Shand
(“Shand”), an inmate currently housed at
MacDougall-Walker Correctional Institution
(“MWCI”) in Suffield, Connecticut, filed a
complaint pro se pursuant to title 42, section 1983
of the United States Code against Warden Chapdelaine, Deputy
Warden Hines, Deputy Warden Guadarrama, Captain Rivera,
Correction Officer Mancini, Correction Officer Raines, and
four other unidentified correction officers at MWCI in their
individual capacities for monetary relief. Complaint (Doc.
No. 1). On November 30, 2017, this Court granted Shand's
Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 2).
See Order (Doc. No. 6). For the following reasons,
his Complaint is dismissed in part.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
to title 28, section 1915A of the United States Code, this
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. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
Although detailed allegations are not required, the complaint
must include sufficient facts to afford the defendant fair
notice of the claims and the grounds upon which they are
based and to demonstrate a 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.” Bell Atlantic, 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.
January 25, 2015, Captain Rivera assembled a “cell
extraction team” after Shand's cellmate refused to
take down a sheet covering the cell window. Compl. at ¶
18. Shand had nothing to do with his cellmate's decision
to cover the window. Id. at ¶ 24. The
“cell extraction team” included Rivera and
correction officers Mancini, Raines, and John Does 1-4.
Id. at ¶ 19. Upon opening the cell, the team
members immediately attacked Shand. Id. Raines and
Mancini punched Shand several times in the head, causing his
left ear drum to burst and permanently damaging his hearing.
Id. at ¶¶ 19- 20. John Does 2-4 also
participated in beating Shand. Id. at ¶ 21. The
officers yelled at Shand to “stop resisting!, ”
despite the fact that Shand was not resisting, but was rather
lying prone on the floor of the cell. Id. at
the other team members were beating Shand, Rivera sprayed him
with a chemical agent causing Shand to experience pain in his
eyes and lungs and difficulty breathing. Compl. ¶ 10.
John Doe 1 stood by and permitted Rivera to spray Shand even
though both Doe 1 and Rivera knew that Shand suffered from
asthma. Id. at ¶¶ 11-12. After using the
pepper spray, Rivera ordered that Shand be placed in in-cell
body restraints--including handcuffs, leg irons, and a tether
chain connecting his hands to his legs--for three days.
Id. at ¶¶ 14-16. All members of the
“extraction team” denied Shand any medical care
for his damaged ear after he was beaten. Id. at
is suing Rivera, Raines, Mancini, and John Does 1-4 for using
excessive force, placing him in in-cell restraints, and
denying him medical care, in violation of his Fifth, Eighth,
and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Compl. at ¶¶
30-34, 39-42, 46-47. He is also raising state law claims of
assault and battery against those defendants. Id. at
¶¶ 36-38. Shand is suing Chapdelaine, Hines, and
Guadarrama for failing to train and failing to supervise
correctional officers at MacDougall-Walker Correctional
Institution, based on the actions of Rivera, Raines, Mancini,
and John Does 1-4. Id. at ¶¶ 43-45.
Fifth Amendment Claims
Fifth Amendment applies to the federal government, not to the
states. See Dusenbery v. United States, 534 U.S.
161, 167 (2002) (Fifth Amendment due process applies to
federal government actors whereas Fourteenth Amendment due
process applies to state actors); Ambrose v. City of New
York, 623 F.Supp.2d 454, 466-67 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (due
process claim against city properly brought under Fourteenth
Amendment, not Fifth Amendment). Shand has not raised any
claim against a federal government actor. Therefore, his
Fifth Amendment claims are dismissed.
Eighth Amendment Claims Against Rivera, Raines, Mancini,
and Does 1-4
establish a claim of excessive force under the Eighth
Amendment, the prisoner must satisfy a subjective and
objective component. See Sims ...