United States District Court, D. Connecticut
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER
Jeffrey Alker Meyer United States District Judge.
Plaintiff
David Tuttle has filed a pro se complaint against
state prison officials alleging that they deprived him of due
process in connection with a disciplinary hearing concluding
that plaintiff threatened another prison inmate. Based on the
allegations of the complaint and its many documentary
attachments, I conclude that plaintiff has not alleged
plausible grounds for relief under the Due Process Clause,
much less grounds that would plausibly suffice to overcome
qualified immunity. Accordingly, I will dismiss this action.
Background
Plaintiff
has filed this lawsuit against the Connecticut Department of
Correction's Commissioner Scott Semple, Director of
Security Christine Whidden, District Admnistrators Peter
Murphy and Edward Maldonado, Disciplinary Hearing Officer
Eberle, Captain Dougherty, and Investigating Officer
Dousis.[1]
The
following facts are assumed to be true solely for purposes of
my initial evaluation of the adequacy of the second amended
complaint. In December of 2016, plaintiff was confined in the
restrictive housing unit (RHU) at Corrigan-Radgowski
Correctional Center. In anticipation of his release from RHU,
plaintiff advised Investigating Officer Dousis and Deputy
Warden Jeffrey Zegarzewski that he should not be placed in
any of the general population units at Corrigan because of a
prior incident he had with correctional officers. Shortly
thereafter, plaintiff was removed from the RHU and placed in
the C-Pod housing unit. Doc. #36 at 9-10 (¶¶
16-17).
While
in the C-Pod unit, plaintiff was having
“problems” with inmate Michael Roca-Rivera, who
was housed in a nearby cell. On January 13, 2017, plaintiff
wrote a letter to Warden Santiago, requesting that he be sent
to another correctional facility or moved to another housing
unit because he had a history of problems with Roca-Rivera.
After failing to receive a response to the letter, plaintiff
sent a second letter on January 19, 2017. Id. at
11-12 (¶¶ 18-20), 29-33 (January 13 letter), 34-35
(January 19 letter).
On
January 21, 2017, Roca-Rivera provided block officers with a
two-page letter that he said was given to him by plaintiff. A
disciplinary report was issued that same day which charged
plaintiff with issuing “threats” against inmate
Roca-Rivera. As a result, plaintiff was returned to the RHU.
Id. at 12 (¶ 21); 36 (January 21 disciplinary
report).
On
January 23, 2017, Officer Dousis informed plaintiff that the
disciplinary report for threats would be dismissed, but that
Captain Dougherty would issue another disciplinary report for
security risk group affiliation (“SRG”) for
plaintiff's affiliation with the Latin Kings. This
disciplinary report was based on the same letter that served
as the basis for the original disciplinary report. The new
disciplinary report was issued on January 23, and plaintiff
was provided a copy of the report that same day. Id.
at 12 (¶ 22); 37 (January 23 disciplinary report with
details concerning specific written threat and Latin Kings
connection).
Dousis
further informed plaintiff that his disciplinary hearing was
scheduled for January 25, 2017. Plaintiff told Dousis that he
wanted an advocate to represent him at the hearing (which he
received), requested certain witnesses who were housed in the
C-Pod unit, and requested a continuance so that he could do
research and prepare his defense. Plaintiff alleges that
Douisis ignored his request for a continuance and that the
request “was never marked down.” Dousis further
stated that she had spoken with the witnesses in the C-Pod
unit and that they had told her that they did not know
anything and did not want to be involved in the hearing.
Id. at 13 (¶¶ 23- 25), 38 (disciplinary
report relating statements of prospective witnesses).
Later
that day, plaintiff was taken to the RHU manager's office
where he met with Dousis and Dougherty. There, Dougherty
showed plaintiff the two-page letter he had allegedly sent to
Roca-Rivera. Upon review, plaintiff immediately noticed that
the letter was not written in his handwriting and that the
letter did not mention the words “Latin Kings” or
other security risk group affiliations. Plaintiff told
Dougherty and Dousis that he wanted the letter to be examined
by a handwriting expert. Id. at 13-14 (¶¶
26-27).
On
January 25, 2017, plaintiff was brought to his disciplinary
hearing, in which Lieutenant Eberle served as the
disciplinary hearing officer. While explaining the
allegations behind the disciplinary report, Eberle mentioned
the existence of camera footage from the facility's
surveillance system showing plaintiff passing something with
his right hand under Roca-Rivera's cell door on January
21, 2017. Plaintiff explained that he merely bent down to
pick up a pencil that Roca-Rivera had passed him and that the
disciplinary report he received regarding the gang
affiliation made no mention of the video surveillance
footage. Plaintiff objected to the introduction of the video
footage and requested a continuance to review it. Plaintiff
also states that he “became very upset” at the
hearing. Immediately thereafter, officers removed him from
the hearing and placed him back in his cell. Id. at
14-15 (¶¶ 28-31).
Plaintiff
was ultimately found guilty by the hearing officer
“based on the inmate witness statements, DR History,
facility video, evidence provided and staff
documentation.” Id. at 38 (further describing
evidence relied on by hearing officer). As a result,
plaintiff was advised in writing that he was officially
classified as an SRG member. Id. at 41. Plaintiff
asked Dousis why he was never granted a continuance to
prepare his defense, and Dousis allegedly stated that he had
never asked for one. Id. at 16-17 (¶¶
32-34), 39-41.
On
February 7, 2017, plaintiff wrote a letter and sent it to
Commissioner Semple and others complaining about the
hearing.[2] On February 23, Christine Whidden wrote a
letter in response confirming the result of the hearing.
Id. at 17 (¶¶ 35), 41.
Attempts
by plaintiff to obtain a copy of the handwritten note were
unsuccessful. He was informed by Eberle, Dougherty, and
Dousis that he would have to submit a Freedom of Information
Act (“FOIA”) request. Plaintiff submitted two
FOIA requests for a copy of the handwritten note in February
of 2017; ...