United States District Court, D. Connecticut
RULING ON PENDING MOTIONS
R. UNDERHILL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Al-Bukhari (“Al-Bukhari”), a/k/a Jerome Riddick,
is currently confined in the MacDougall-Walker Correctional
Institution. He initiated this action in 2015 by filing a
complaint against six employees of the State of Connecticut
Department of Correction regarding his confinement in
administrative segregation at Garner Correctional Institution
(“Garner”) from March 2014 to March 2015.
See Compl., ECF No. 1.
August 15, 2017, Al-Bukhari filed a fourth amended complaint
asserting twenty-eight counts against an assistant attorney
general, the Department of Correction and thirty-nine of its
employees. See Fourth Am. Compl., ECF No. 66. On May
31, 2018, Al-Bukhari moved to withdraw counts, nineteen
through twenty-eight of the fourth amended complaint, which
pertain to violations and the enforcement of the March 2014
Settlement Agreement and the 2015 Clarification of the terms
of the Agreement. On June 5, 2018, the court granted the
motion to withdraw. See Order, ECF No. 118. On
August 16, 2018, the court dismissed Count Eighteen, which
also pertains to violations and the enforcement of the March
2014 Settlement Agreement and the 2015 Clarification of the
terms of the Agreement, to be pursued together with Counts
Nineteen through Twenty-Eight, in Riddick v. Semple, et
al., No. 3:16-cv-1769 (SRU). See Order of
Deconsolidation and Dismissal of Claims, ECF No. 124 at 3-4.
In addition, the court dismissed Counts Five through Nine,
which relate to the alleged deprivations of Al-Bukhari's
First Amendment right to practice his Muslim religion, to be
pursued in Al-Bukhari v. Connecticut Department
Correction, et al., No. 3:16-cv-1267 (SRU). See
Id. at 4-5.
September 21, 2018, the court granted in part the
defendants' motion to dismiss addressed to Counts Ten,
Eleven, Fourteen, Fifteen and Seventeen of the fourth amended
complaint. The court granted the motion with respect to the
claim for monetary damages against the defendants in their
official capacities, the Eighth Amendment claim of food
tampering against Officer Punter in Count Ten, the state law
claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress against
Officers Punter, Bernard and McGoldrich in Count Ten, the
First Amendment retaliation claim asserted against
Correctional Treatment Officer Taranovich and Lieutenant
Eberle in Count Fourteen, the First Amendment retaliation
claim asserted against Warden Falcone in Count Fifteen and
the First Amendment claim asserted on behalf of other inmates
in Count Seventeen, and denied the motion in all other
respects. See Ruling Mot. Dismiss, ECF No. 125, at
following counts and claims in the fourth amended complaint
remain pending: Counts One through Four; Counts Eleven
through Thirteen, which pertain to Al-Bukhari's placement
in Administrative Segregation at Cheshire Correctional
Institution (“Cheshire”) and Garner in 2014 and
2015 and the conditions of confinement in Administrative
Segregation at Cheshire, Garner and Northern Correctional
Institution (“Northern”), including mental health
treatment, during a period from March 2014 to August 2017;
the claim in Count Fourteen that pertains to the issuance of
a disciplinary report for security tampering on May 22, 2015
at Garner by Correctional Treatment Officer Taranovich, the
failure of Dr. Guerrero and Social Workers Kuzebski, John Doe
1 and John Doe 2 to evaluate Al-Bukhari prior to the
disciplinary hearing to determine whether his mental health
issues played a part in his having engaged in misbehavior and
the finding of guilt and imposition of sanctions by
Lieutenant Eberle after the disciplinary hearing; and the
claim in Count Seventeen that pertains to the decision made
by Warden Falcone, on December 11, 2014 at Garner, to deny
Al-Bukhari possession of his “Black Men”
publication because the publication was sexually explicit.
Those claims and counts proceed against defendants Semple,
Quiros, Burns, Falcone, Erfe, Maldonado, Cournoyer, Mulligan,
Faneuff, Molden, Hein, Dilworth, Robles, Mitchell, Johnson,
McDaniels, Eberle, Calderon, Verrastro, Taranovich, Gerbino,
Cartwright, Gagne, Frayne, Guerrero, Perelmutter, Brown,
Simo-Kinzer, Doe 1, Doe 2 and Kubeski, in their individual
capacities. See Id. at 17-18, 24-25, 27.
has filed a motion for order to show cause, three motions for
temporary restraining order, two motions for preliminary
injunction, a motion for appointment of counsel, a motion for
extension of time to file a reply, a motion for copies, a
motion for default, a motion to preserve evidence and a
motion for extension of time to conduct discovery. For the
reasons set forth below, the motions are denied.
Social Worker John Doe 1 and Social Worker John Doe
indicated above, the case proceeds with respect to the claim
in Count Fourteen against Social Worker John Doe 1 and Social
Worker John Doe 2. In the conclusion of the ruling on the
motion to dismiss, the court informed Al-Bukhari that he must
provide the court with the first and last names for Social
Workers John Doe 1 and John Doe 2 in order to enable the U.S.
Marshal to serve them with a copy of the Fourth Amended
Complaint. See Id. at 27. The court cautioned
Al-Bukhari that failure to provide the necessary service
information within thirty days would result in dismissal of
the action against Doe defendants pursuant to Rule 4(m), Fed.
R. Civ. P.
three months since the court's ruling on the motion to
dismiss has elapsed and Al-Bukhari has not provided the court
with the first and last names of the Social Worker John Doe 1
or Social Worker John Doe 2. Nor has he sought an extension
of time to ascertain the names of the John Doe Social
Workers. Accordingly, the claims against the Doe defendants
are dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 4(m), Fed.
R. Civ. P.
Emergency Motions for Order to Show Cause, Temporary
Restraining Order, Preliminary Injunction and for Extension
of Time to File a Reply [ECF Nos. 101, 102, 112]
March 9, 2018, Al-Bukhari filed a motion
seeking an order to show cause, a temporary restraining order
and a preliminary injunction and on March 14, 2018,
Al-Bukhari filed a motion seeking a temporary restraining
order and a preliminary injunction. The motions are
essentially identical. The court notes that Al-Bukhari filed
the same motions in six other cases in this court. See
Al-Bukhari v. Connecticut Department Correction, et al.,
No. 3:16-cv-53 (SRU); Al-Bukhari v. Maurer, et al.,
No. 3:16-cv-2009 (SRU); Al-Bukhari v. Connecticut
Department Correction, et al., No. 3:16-cv-1267 (SRU);
Al-Bukhari v. Semple, et al., No. 3:18-cv-313 (SRU);
Al-Bukhari v. Semple, et al., No. 3:18-cv-408 (SRU).
On March 29, 2018, the defendants filed a memorandum in
opposition to the motions for an order to show cause, for a
temporary restraining order and for a preliminary injunction.
claims that in early March 2018, Captains Walsh and Salius,
who are employed at Walker Correctional Institution
(“Walker”), denied or interfered with his right
to contact and communicate with attorneys who worked for the
Inmate Legal Aid Program (“ILAP”). He contends
that Captains Salius and Walsh hindered his access to
telephone calls in retaliation for his filing of three
federal lawsuits in February and March 2018 against
Department of Correction employees and for sending written
requests regarding conditions of confinement at Walker to
Commissioner Semple and Director Burns. He seeks an order
prohibiting prison staff at Walker from restricting his
ability to communicate by telephone with attorneys,
paralegals and legal assistants at ILAP and an order
requiring prison official at Walker to permit him to use the
“non-inmate” telephones as well as inmate
telephones to call ILAP.
their response to the motions for injunctive relief, the
defendants state that during most of December 2017 and
January and February 2018 Al-Bukhari had been sanctioned to
loss of telephone privileges. See Defs.' Mem.
Opp'n Mots. TRO & Prelim. Inj., Ex. A., [ECF No.
107-1], Mulligan Aff. ¶ 5. Despite that fact, prison
officials at Walker permitted Al-Bukhari to make thirty-six
legal telephone calls to ILAP from December 2017 until the
end of February 2018 and four legal calls during March 2018.
See id., Ex. A, Mulligan Aff. ¶¶ 5-6,
11-13; Ex. B., ECF No. 107-2.
indicated above, the remaining claims in the fourth amended
complaint pertain to Al-Bukhari's placement in
Administrative Segregation at Cheshire and Garner in 2014 and
2015 and the conditions of confinement in Administrative
Segregation at Cheshire, Garner and Northern, including
mental health treatment, during a period from March 2014 to
August 2017. The defendants who remain in the action are
employed at Garner, Cheshire and Northern. Neither Captain
Walsh, nor Captain Salius are defendants in this action and
there are no allegations in the fourth amended ...