United States District Court, D. Connecticut
RULING ON PENDING MOTIONS FOR
A. Bolden United States District Judge
Leslie Williams filed this action pro se under 42
U.S.C. §1983, alleging violations of his constitutional
rights in relation to his placement in Administrative
Segregation. Earlier, this Court granted in part and denied
in part Defendants' motion for summary judgment, holding
that this case will proceed to trial on the due process claim
against Defendants Roche and Green based on the duration of
Mr. Williams' stay in Administrative Detention and the
lack of review, and dismissing other claims and defendants.
parties now move for reconsideration of the Court's
order. For the reasons stated below, both motions are
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
a life sentence and currently confined in the custody of the
Connecticut Department of Corrections, Defs. L. R. 56(a)
Stmt. ¶¶ 1-2, ECF No. 47-2, Mr. Williams alleges
that Defendants violated his constitutional rights when he
was placed in Administrative Segregation, after he allegedly
handed a drawing and love poem to a nurse.
Id.¶¶ 7, 20.
Segregation is a restrictive status, appropriate “[f]or
the investigation of an allegation or information involving
the inmate in the commission of a crime, or of activities
jeopardizing the security of the facility or the safety of
staff or inmates that could result in placement on punitive
or administrative segregation or transfer to high
security.” See Conn. Dep't of Corr. Admin.
Directive 9.4(3)(B)(2), effective June 16, 2016. Under
Department of Correction policies in place at the time,
prison officials could authorize placement in Administrative
Detention for up to fourteen days or pending a hearing.
See Conn. Dep't of Corr. Admin. Directive 9.4,
Att. B, effective June 16, 2016. Prison officials were
supposed to conduct periodic reviews “every 72 hours by
the Unit Administrator or designee . . . .”
Id. Mr. Williams was placed in Administrative
Segregation on February 7, 2013, where he remained until
February 27, 2013. Defs.' L.R. 56(a) Stmt. ¶ 31.
Williams filed the initial Complaint in this matter pro
se on August 14, 2014. See Compl., ECF No. 1.
He then filed an Amended Complaint, asserting sixteen federal
and state law claims against Defendants. See Amend.
Compl., ECF No. 8. Defendants then moved to dismiss. ECF No.
Court granted Defendants' motion in part and denied it in
part. See Ruling on Defs. Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No.
34. The Court noted that several claims had previously been
dismissed in its Initial Review Order, ECF No. 7. The Court
granted the motion in part and dismissed several claims, but
it allowed the case to proceed on Mr. Williams'
procedural due process and retaliation claim against
Defendants Roche, Green and Beaulieu, his claim of
unconstitutional conditions of confinement against Defendant
Green, and his excessive punishment against Defendants Ford,
Roche and Green. Id. at 20.
then moved for summary judgment. They argued that Mr.
Williams failed to exhaust his institutional remedies, and
that he had failed to state cognizable claims under the
First, Eighth, or Fourteenth Amendments. See Summ. J. Ruling
at 7. Mr. Williams filed a response. Pl. Resp., ECF No. 50.
on the issues raised in the Defendants' motion, the Court
directed the parties to submit supplemental briefing
addressing whether Mr. Williams “had exhausted his
administrative remedies with regard to any of the remaining
claims, including whether he appealed the Prison's
decision that his Level 2 grievance was
‘compromised.'” Order re: Exhaustion at 5,
ECF No. 54. Defendants responded that Mr. Williams failed to
exhaust his administrative remedies for his retaliation and
conditions of confinement claims, which they had not
previously addressed. Defs. Resp. to Court's Order re
Exhaustion, ECF No. 55. Mr. Williams did not file a response.
Court granted Defendants' motion for summary judgment in
part, holding that Mr. Williams had failed to exhaust his
First and Eighth Amendment claims, but that he had exhausted
his due process claim. Summ. J. Ruling at 1. The Court also
dismissed Defendants Beaulieu and Ford from the case.
Id. at 15-16. The Court therefore concluded that
“[t]he case will proceed to trial on the due process
claim against Defendants Roche and Green based on the
duration of Mr. Williams' stay in Administrative
Detention and the lack of review.” Id. at 18.
The Court also granted Mr. Williams' motion for
appointment of pro bono counsel. Id. 18-19.
Williams then filed an interlocutory appeal to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Notice of
Interlocutory Appeal, ECF No. 58. Fifteen days after the
ruling, Defendants moved for the Court to reconsider its
ruling with regard to exhaustion. Defs. Mot. for
Reconsideration (“Defs. Mot.”), ECF No. 60. The
Second Circuit dismissed Mr. Williams's appeal as
improper, Mandate, ECF ...