United States District Court, D. Connecticut
JOSE E. RAMOS, Plaintiff,
DANNEL P. MALLOY, et al., Defendants.
INIITAL REVIEW ORDER
A. Bolden, United States District Judge.
Ramos (“Plaintiff”), currently incarcerated at
MacDougall-Walker Correctional Institution in Suffield,
Connecticut, filed this Complaint pro se against
Commissioner Scott Semple and Warden William Mulligan
(together, “Defendants”), alleging that, under a
new institutional policy, he has been denied the envelopes
from his legal mail in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
reasons discussed below, Mr. Ramos's Complaint is
dismissed. Mr. Ramos may file a motion to reopen the
Complaint, accompanied by an amended complaint, within twenty
days of this Order.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Ramos alleges that, on August 14, 2017, he was not provided
the envelope from incoming legal correspondence. Compl.
¶ 1, ECF No. 1. When he complained to a counselor, Mr.
Ramos was allegedly given a copy of a memorandum issued by
the Warden stating that inmates would not be permitted to
retain the envelopes from incoming legal correspondence.
Id. ¶ 2; Ex. A (“Incoming Legal Mail
Memo”). If the inmate needed return address information
from the envelope, a copy of the envelope would be provided.
Id. Ex. A.
same day, Mr. Ramos complained about the new policy to Warden
Mulligan. Id. ¶ 3. The Warden told Mr. Ramos
that the policy would not be changed. Id. On August
17, 2017, Mr. Ramos filed a grievance. Id. ¶ 4.
Warden Mulligan denied the grievance, stating that the
facility's new practice was to retain the envelopes from
incoming legal correspondence. Id. Mr. Ramos is
permitted to retain envelopes from incoming general
Ramos filed his Complaint on April 10, 2018. Id. His
motion to proceed in forma pauperis was granted on
April 13, 2018. ECF No. 7.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the 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. 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 right to relief. Bell Atl. 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 “pro 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
Ramos argues that Defendants have violated his Fourth,
Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights by depriving him of
the envelopes from his legal correspondence. He also contends
that Defendant Mulligan has interfered with his attempts to
exhaust his administrative remedies by denying a grievance.
Claims Related to ...