United States District Court, D. Connecticut
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER
Michael P. Shea, United States District Judge
Jeffery DeAngelis, currently incarcerated at the Osborn
Correctional Institution in Somers, Connecticut, filed this
case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 asserting claims for
violation of various constitutional and federal rights. He
names ten defendants: ADA Coordinator Devonia Long, Captain
Luis Colon, Commissioner Scott Semple, the Department of
Correction, Warden Gary Wright, Captain Griffin, Richard
Furey, Dr. Monica Farinella, Dr. Mahoob Ashraf, and
Correctional Managed Health Care.
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. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. This requirement
applies to all prisoner filings regardless whether the
prisoner pays the filing fee. Nicholson v. Lenczewski,
356 F.Supp.2d 157, 159 (D. Conn. 2005) (citing Carr v.
Dvorin, 171 F.3d 115 (2d Cir. 1999) (per curiam)).
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 plausible 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.”
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570.
addition, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a)(2) permits
the joinder of multiple defendants in a single action if two
criteria are met: first, the claims “aris[e] out of the
same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions and
occurrences”; and second, “any question of law or
fact common to all defendants will arise in the
action.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 20(a)(2). “What will
constitute the same transaction or occurrence under the first
prong of Rule 20(a) is approached on a case by case
basis.” Kehr ex rel. Kehr v. Yamaha Motor Corp.,
U.S.A., 596 F.Supp.2d 821, 826 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (citation
omitted). As the Second Circuit has observed in the Rule 13
context,  whether a counterclaim arises out of the
same transaction as the original claim depends upon the
logical relationship between the claims and whether the
“essential facts of the various claims are so logically
connected that considerations of judicial economy and
fairness dictate that all the issues be resolved in one
lawsuit.” Harris v. Steinem, 571 F.2d 119, 123
(2d Cir. 1978).
Conditions in Q Buildings
November 2014 through April 2015, the plaintiff was confined
in the Q-buildings at Osborn Correctional Institution
(“Osborn”). ECF No. 1, ¶ 6. During that
time, he was required to drink dirty water containing
H-pylori, PCB's, lead, and arsenic. Id., ¶
7. The cells contained high levels of PCB's and toxic
amounts of black mold. Id., ¶ 8. On December 7,
2016, and December 11, 2016, correctional officers stated on
televised news that the buildings were being closed because
of unsafe conditions including the presence of PCB's and
asbestos. Id., ¶ 9. During 2011 and 2012, TRC
performed tests at various locations around the Q-buildings.
The tests showed toxic levels of PCB's and asbestos.
Id., ¶ 10. When the plaintiff returned to
Osborn on September 29, 2017, he learned that the Q-buildings
had been closed. Id., ¶ 11. Commissioner Semple
has been aware of the conditions at Osborn since 2011-12, but
continues to house inmates at Osborn. Id., ¶
Housing Assignments/ADA Claims
plaintiff walks with a cane and experiences severe pain from
degenerative disc disease and a disc protrusion displacing
the S1 nerve root. Id., ¶ 14. Upon his return
to Osborn, the plaintiff was assigned to E-block, the housing
unit farthest from the dining hall and medical unit.
Id., ¶ 12. He was required to walk the length
of two football fields to the dining hall and one football
field to the medical unit. Id., ¶ 13.
are permitted twenty minutes to get to the dining hall and
eat their meals. Id., ¶ 15. By the time the
plaintiff reached the dining hall, it was closed. He was
required to return to his cell without a meal. Id.,
¶ 16. On October 1, 2017, the plaintiff explained the
situation to Captain Colon and asked to be moved to B-block
which was closer to the dining hall and medical unit.
Id., ¶ 17. Captain Colon refused the request
for transfer and told the plaintiff to deal with the
situation. Id., ¶ 18.
enter the shower in E-block, the inmate must step over a
30” wall. The shower contains no railings or mats to
prevent inmates from falling. Id., ¶ 19. The
plaintiff asked Captain Colon for a handicap shower,
explaining that recently he had fallen in a non-handicap
shower at another correctional facility. Id., ¶
20. Captain Colon denied the request. Id., ¶
21. On October 8, 2017, the plaintiff submitted a request for
accommodation to Americans with Disabilities Act Coordinator
Long seeking permission to use the handicap shower in the
medical unit. Id., ¶ 22.
October 10, 2017, the plaintiff submitted another request
seeking a second accommodation, a single cell. Id.,
¶ 23. The plaintiff experiences urinary incontinence.
Incidents of incontinence have caused problems with several
past cellmates and resulted in assaults by two prior
cellmates. Id., ¶¶ 24-25.
departmental directives provide that a response to a request
for reasonable accommodation should be received within two
business days, the plaintiff received no response to either
request for five weeks. On November 17, 2017, he resubmitted
the requests. Id., ¶¶ 26-28.
Wright ordered that the plaintiff utilize a catheter
connected to a leg bag to collect urine. Id., ¶
126. This was the reason for the request for a single cell.
ADA Coordinator Long has ignored these requests since
November 2017. Id., ¶ 127. The plaintiff wrote
to Warden Wright complaining about the lack of response for
five months. Id., ¶ 128. When he spoke to
Warden Wright on ...