United States District Court, D. Connecticut
RULING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [ECF NO.
W. Thompson United States District Judge
plaintiff, Luis Vicente, commenced this civil rights action
pro se. The remaining defendants, Giuliana Mudano, Scott
Salius, Matthew Prior and Angela Walters, have moved for
summary judgment. For the reasons that follow, the motion for
summary judgment is being granted.
motion for summary judgment may be granted only where there
are no issues of material fact in dispute and, based on those
material facts, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law. Rule 56(a), Fed. R. Civ. P.; Redd v. New
York Div. of Parole, 678 F.3d 166, 173-74 (2d Cir.
2012). “When the nonmoving party will bear the burden
of proof at trial, the moving party can satisfy its burden at
summary judgment by ‘pointing out to the district
court' the absence of a genuine dispute with respect to
any essential element of its opponent's case: ‘a
complete failure of proof concerning an essential element of
the nonmoving party's case necessarily renders all other
facts immaterial.'” Cohane v. National
Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, 612 Fed.Appx. 41, 43 (2d
Cir. 2015) (quoting Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477
U.S. 317, 323 (1986)). Once the moving party meets this
burden, the nonmoving party must set forth specific facts
showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Wright
v. Goord, 554 F.3d 255, 266 (2d Cir. 2009). He cannot
“‘rely on conclusory allegations or
unsubstantiated speculation' but ‘must come forward
with specific evidence demonstrating the existence of a
genuine dispute of material fact.'” Robinson v.
Concentra Health Servs., 781 F.3d 42, 34 (2d Cir. 2015)
(citation omitted). He must present such evidence as would
allow a jury to find in his favor in order to defeat the
motion for summary judgment. Graham v. Long Island
R.R., 230 F.3d 34, 38 (2d Cir. 2000). Although the court
reads pro se papers liberally and interprets them to raise
the strongest arguments they suggest, Willey v.
Kirkpatrick, 801 F.3d 51, 62 (2d Cir. 2015),
“unsupported allegations do not create a material issue
of fact” and are insufficient to oppose a properly
supported motion for summary judgment. Weinstock v.
Columbia Univ., 224 F.3d 33, 41 (2d Cir. 2000).
January 24, 2017, the plaintiff was a pretrial detainee
confined in the Walker building at the MacDougall-Walker
Correctional Institution (“Walker”). The
plaintiff was confined in cell B1-11. The plaintiff, along
with two other inmates, covered his cell door window to
protest the manner in which the Administrative Segregation
program is administered at Walker. The inmates were persuaded
to remove the covering. All three inmates were issued
disciplinary reports for interfering with safety and
security. The plaintiff pled guilty to the charge.
receiving the disciplinary reports, the three inmates again
covered their cell door windows. Correctional supervisors,
medical staff and mental health staff verbally attempted to
persuade the plaintiff to remove the covering from the window
and comply with an order to be handcuffed and removed from
his cell. The verbal intervention lasted for approximately
one hour. The verbal intervention was unsuccessful.
the plaintiff did not comply with a final order to be
handcuffed and exit the cell, a chemical agent was deployed
into the cell. After the chemical agent was re-deployed, the
plaintiff left his cell voluntarily. He was issued a
disciplinary report for flagrant disobedience. He pled guilty
to the report.
Salius had no further interaction with the plaintiff after
12:45 p.m. on January 24, 2017, and had no involvement in
plaintiff was placed on in-cell restraints in cell B1-31. The
plaintiff broke the restraints and smashed the cell door
window. He pled guilty to that offense. The plaintiff was
moved to Restrictive Housing Unit cell 6 and placed on soft
full stationary restraints. Shortly thereafter, at 3:45 p.m.,
the plaintiff slipped his hands free of the soft restraints.
The plaintiff received a disciplinary report for security
tampering. He pled guilty.
Lieutenant Prior determined that the plaintiff should be
placed in metal mechanical full stationary restraints. The
plaintiff was moved to Restrictive Housing Unit cell 7 for
this purpose. At 3:47 p.m., before he was moved to cell 7,
the plaintiff asked to use the bathroom. Defendant Prior
denied permission because of the plaintiff's disruptive
metal restraints were applied, the plaintiff threatened to
file a lawsuit against defendant Prior for placing him in the
metal restraints. The plaintiff made conflicting statements
about his need to urinate, claiming both that he had urinated
on himself and then that he needed to use the bathroom. When
the plaintiff stated that he needed to urinate at 3:53 p.m.,
defendant Prior told him that he would have a bathroom break
in two hours.
defendant Prior's request, defendant Nurse Walters
checked the restraints to confirm that there was proper
circulation. She documented restraint checks every fifteen
minutes for the entire time the plaintiff was confined in
metal restraints. Adequate circulation was found on all but
one check. At the 4:45 p.m. check, defendant Walters informed
defendant Prior that the left wrist restraint should be
loosened. Defendant Prior ordered a correctional officer to
loosen that restraint.
p.m., defendant Prior determined that the plaintiff had
urinated on himself. He ordered that the plaintiff be given
clean clothes and directed that the plaintiff be placed on
in-cell restraints. The plaintiff also received a new
mattress, a new blanket and ...