United States District Court, D. Connecticut
JOSE E. RAMOS, Plaintiff,
DANNEL P. MALLOY et al., Defendants.
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER
A. BOLDEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Ramos (“Plaintiff”) currently incarcerated at
MacDougall-Walker Correctional Institution in Suffield,
Connecticut, and proceeding pro se, has sued
Governor Dannel P. Malloy, the Town of Suffield, Commissioner
Scott Semple, Warden William Mulligan, and Lieutenant Roy
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Ramos alleges that he has been denied a book about religion
in violation of his First, Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth
Amendment rights. He seeks damages as well as declaratory and
following reasons, the Complaint is
DISMISSED, but, to the extent that the
deficiencies in this Complaint can be remedied, Mr. Ramos may
file an Amended Complaint by October 1,
1, 2017, Mr. Ramos alleges a third party ordered a book,
All Religions are One by Jeffery Moses, for Mr.
Ramos. The third party allegedly instructed Mr. Ramos to
contact him, if Mr. Ramos did not receive the book within
thirty days, so he could order another copy. Mr. Ramos
allegedly did not receive the book. After sixty days, Mr.
Ramos claims that he contacted the third party and another
copy of the book was ordered. Mr. Ramos alleges that he still
has not received the book.
Ramos claims that he contacted several Department of
Correction employees about the book. On July 20, 2017, he
allegedly submitted an inmate request to the grievance
counselor and, the following day, filed a grievance. On
September 29, 2017, Mr. Ramos allegedly received a response
from the grievance coordinator indicating that additional
time was needed to investigate the issue. On October 19,
2017, Mr. Ramos allegedly met with a state police trooper who
told him that Lieutenant Roy would investigate the issue to
determine whether the books were received and, if so, where
Ramos commenced this cased on April 6, 2018, and his motion
to proceed in forma pauperis was granted on April
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Court must review complaints by incarcerated persons 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.
Although detailed allegations are not required, a complaint
must include sufficient facts to afford a defendants fair
notice of the claims and grounds upon which the claims are
based and to demonstrate a 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). A plaintiff must plead
“enough facts to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at
it is well-established that “[p]ro 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, by depriving him of a book about religion,
Defendants have infringed on his religious rights, his right
to be treated equally, his right to due process, his right to
be free from cruel and unusual punishment, his right against
unreasonable seizure and his right to property as afforded
him under the First, Fourth, Eighth and Fourteenth
Amendments, respectively. The Court addresses each contention
Defendants Malloy, Town of Suffield, ...