United States District Court, D. Connecticut
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER
A. BOLDEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Dixon (“Plaintiff”) is incarcerated at the
Corrigan-Radgowski Correctional Institution in Uncasville,
Connecticut (“Corrigan”), and proceeding pro
se, has sued Warden Faucher, Deputy Warden Cotto,
Lieutenant Stadalnik and Correction Officer Ocasio
(collectively “Defendants”) under 42 U.S.C.
reasons that follow, the Court DISMISSES the
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURE BACKGROUND
12, 2017, Mr. Dixon allegedly attended a hearing at Hartford
Superior Court. Compl. at ¶ 1, ECF No. 1. Upon arriving
back to Corrigan-Radgowski Correctional Center
(“Corrigan”), he and four other inmates were
allegedly held in a room adjacent to the
“bullpen.” Id. ¶¶ 3-4. The
strip and search room is located within the
“bullpen.” Id. ¶ 4. An
Admitting and Processing Correctional Officer allegedly
called each inmate into the strip-search room to be searched.
Id. ¶ 5. On that day, the stripsearches were
allegedly conducted by Officer Ocasio. Id. Another
Admitting and Processing Officer allegedly stood in the area
near the entrance of the strip-search room, but did not
completely block the entrance from inmates standing outside
of but within view of the room. Id.
Dixon alleges that he could see other inmates being
strip-searched by Officer Ocasio. Id. He also
alleges that, when he entered the strip-search room, he could
see the other inmates outside the room. Id. ¶
6. Mr. Dixon alleges that it was impossible for the Admitting
and Processing Officer standing in the door to obstruct the
view of the inmates outside the strip-search room because the
officer allegedly was six feet tall and weighed between
180-190 pounds. Id. ¶ 7. Mr. Dixon alleges that
he is six feet and four inches tall and weighs between
250-260 pounds. Id.
31, 2017, Mr. Dixon alleges that he submitted an inmate
request to Warden Faucher about the incident, which Warden
Faucher allegedly forwarded to Lieutenant Stadalnik.
Id. ¶ 8. Mr. Dixon alleges that Lieutenant
Stadalnik stated he would remedy his inmate request by
requiring the Admitting and Processing Officers to place a
piece of tape on the floor, a certain distance from the
strip-search room, for the inmates, who are not involved in
the search, to stand behind so the inmates being searched
could not be seen. Id. Lieutenant Stadalnik
allegedly did not promise to implement any other remedy to
provide inmates privacy during the strip searches.
Id. Mr. Dixon alleges that he did not file another
inmate request form or pursue further an administrative
remedy, in light of Lieutenant Stadalnik's representation
that he would remedy the issue. Id. ¶ 10.
Dixon previously filed an action against several Corrigan
Officers in December 2015, alleging that correctional
officers improperly strip-searched him on various dates in
2015. Id. at 3-4; see also Dixon v. Santiago, et
al., No. 3:15-cv-1575 (JAM), 2015 WL 95822729, at *1-2
(D. Conn. Dec. 30, 2015). On January 13, 2017, the Court
dismissed that case under Local Rule 41(b) because the
parties had settled. Order of Dismissal, Dixon v.
Santiago, No. 3:15-cv-1575 (JAM) (D. Conn. Jan. 13,
2017), ECF No. 46.
Settlement Agreement required that the Warden of Corrigan (1)
implement a roll-call and revive the training program for the
correctional staff regarding the requirements of
Administrative Directive 6.7 pertaining to non-emergency
strip searches of inmates, and (2) ensure that inmate
searches in the Admitting and Processing area and the gym or
the exercise room at Corrigan be conducted in areas out of
view of individuals not involved in the searches. Settlement
Agreement and General Release at 10-16, ECF No. 1-1.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), prisoner civil complaints against
governmental actors must be reviewed any portion of the
complaint that “is frivolous, malicious, or 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(b)(1)-(2), must be dismissed.
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that a
complaint contain “a short and plain statement of the
claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). A court must accept as true all factual
matters alleged in a complaint, although a complaint may not
survive unless its factual recitations state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face. See, e.g. Ascroft
v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Mastafa v.
Chevron Corp., 770 F.3d 170, 177 (2d Cir. 2014).
“A claim has facial plausibility when a plaintiff
pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged.” Id. (internal quotation
marks and citations omitted). A complaint that only includes
“‘labels and conclusions,' ‘a formulaic
recitation of the elements of a ...