United States District Court, D. Connecticut
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Alvin
W. Thompson, United States District Judge.
The
plaintiff, Frank Vandever (“Vandever”), was at
all times relevant to this action incarcerated at
Corrigan-Radgowski Correctional Institution in Uncasville,
Connecticut (“Corrigan”). He brought an action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against defendants
Lieutenant Martin Pluszynski (“Pluszynski”),
Captain Robert Judd (“Judd”), and Commissioner
James Dzurenda (“Dzurenda”). The complaint set
forth claims that the defendants retaliated against the
plaintiff, in violation of his First Amendment rights, for
pursuing lawsuits against the Department of Correction or its
employees by placing him on High Security status, and also
that in connection with placing him on High Security status,
the defendants violated his right to equal protection under
the law and his right to procedural due process. The court
dismissed the equal protection claim in the initial review
order (ECF No. 7) and allowed the plaintiff to proceed with
the First Amendment retaliation claim and the Fourteenth
Amendment procedural due process claim against all the
defendants in their individual capacities and against all the
defendants in their official capacities to the extent the
plaintiff sought declaratory relief. During closing
arguments, the plaintiff represented that the First Amendment
retaliation claim is against defendant Dzurenda only.
For the
reasons set forth below, after a bench trial, the court finds
for the defendants on both of the plaintiff's remaining
claims.
I.
FACTS
On July
30, 1990, Vandever was sentenced to a term of life
imprisonment, suspended after 40 years, having been convicted
of murder. At the time he was sentenced, Vandever had been
detained in various Department of Correction facilities since
January 1989. In April 1990, while Vandever was at New Haven
Community Correctional Center, he was put on Administrative
Segregation status after being charged with, among other
violations, attempted escape. In May 1990, while Vandever was
at Montville Correctional Facility, the disciplinary
committee found him guilty of attempted escape. Then, on
December 31, 1991, Vandever and another inmate actually
escaped from the maximum security prison in Somers. This was
a high-profile incident because there had ever been only one
other escape from a Connecticut Department of Correction
maximum security prison. When he was finally apprehended,
Vandever was charged in Connecticut with kidnapping, robbery,
and burglary while a fugitive, and also charged with a series
of armed robberies in New Jersey, also committed while he was
a fugitive. Vandever was returned to the custody of the
Department of Correction on January 22, 1992 and placed on
High Security status.
In
November 1997, there was a hearing held with respect to
Vandever being on High Security status. In the Restrictive
Status Report of Hearing for Placement or Removal, the
hearing officer recommended that Vandever should:
Remain on High Security with special security and population
management considerations. Inmate Vandever was found guilty
of a Contraband Class A DR--possession of escape related
contraband, specifically a 12-page NIJ article on prison
perimeter security. Inmate Vandever, until physically
incapable, will always present a High Security risk for
escape due to his length of sentence and his serious
institutional escape hx. . . .
Defendants'
Trial Exhibit (“Defs.' Trial Ex.”) 3, at page
2. The Inmate Classification Administrator agreed that
Vandever should remain on High Security status and gave as
the reason:
“Possession of escape related contraband and prior
escape and attempts.” Id.
In
February 2008, Lieutenant Edward Corl filed an incident
report concerning Vandever. The incident report recited that
another inmate, who had a job on the trash run, had reported
that Vandever asked the other inmate to let him go with him
on the trash run, and the other inmate refused because he did
not want to be found guilty if Vandever were to escape. In
March 2008, there was a hearing to determine whether Vandever
should be placed on Administrative Segregation status. In the
Restrictive Status Report Hearing for Placement or Removal,
the Director of Offender Classification and Population
Management (“OCPM”) concluded that the
information provided did not support putting Vandever on
Administrative Segregation status, and also concluded,
“Manage at level 4 on H/S, warn offender of future
behavior.” Plaintiff's Trial Exhibit
(“Pl.'s Trial Ex.”) 8. Thus, it was the view
of the Director of OCPM in March 2008 that Vandever should be
on High Security status.
On
January 6, 2009, Michael P. Lajoie, the then-Director of
Security for the Department of Correction, responded to a
letter he had received from Vandever in which Vandever sought
to be removed from High Security status. Lajoie informed
Vandever that after discussing Vandever with others, Lajoie
had concluded that Vandever would remain on High Security
status, but authorized four special visits each year in which
contact with Vandever's family would be allowed. Lajoie
also informed Vandever that “[his] High Security status
will continue to be reviewed on a regular basis in accordance
with Administrative Directive 9.4.” Pl. Trial Ex. 4a.
On June 15, 2009, Lajoie wrote to Vandever again and
encouraged Vandever to “continue to display a positive
attitude” and stated “perhaps we could consider
the next level or removal of High Security.” Pl. Trial
Ex. 4b.
At some
point prior to August 12, 2010, Scott Erfe
(“Erfe”), the warden at Corrigan, wrote to Lynn
Milling (“Milling”) who was at that time the
Director of OCPM, recommending that Vandever be removed from
High Security status. On August 12, 2010, Milling responded
to Erfe, writing:
Please be advised that this office does not concur with your
recommendation concerning the above named inmate, regarding
his removal from High Security [s]tatus. Inmate Vandever is
to remain on High Security status at this time.
Defs. Trial Ex. 1. A copy of the letter went to the
“OCPM File.” Id. Kathryn Dudley, who was
a supervisor in OCPM in August 2010, testified that if OCPM
recommended that an inmate remain on High Security status,
that inmate remained in High Security status at the OCPM
unit.
On
August 11, 2010, Lajoie, who had by then become the District
Administrator for the North District, wrote to Vandever in
response to a letter from Vandever dated July 20, 2010. In
that letter, Vandever had requested removal from High
Security status. Lajoie advised Vandever:
Per Directive, I cannot make the decision to remove your High
Security status. Therefore, by copy of this letter, I will
forward your request to Warden Erfe for his review.
Pl. Trial Ex. 4c.
Then,
on August 18, 2010, Warden Erfe wrote to District
Administrator Lajoie recommending that Vandever be removed
from High Security status:
On July 29, 2010, the review committee met with inmate
Vandever and has recommended that his High Security [s]tatus
be removed while he is here at CRCC and he be placed on
Special Monitoring Status. If and when inmate Vandever
transfers from CRCC to another facility his High Security
[s]tatus will be reinstated . . . For the aforementioned
reasons, the review commit[tee] recommends consideration for
removal of High Security [s]tatus and placement on Special
Monitoring.” Pl. Trial. Ex. 4d.
On
August 24, 2010, Lajoie wrote “Approved” on the
bottom of the August 18, 2010 letter from Warden Erfe.
See Id. That letter also contains a notation
“CC: D/C Dzurenda, ” which is understood to mean
that a copy was sent to defendant Dzurenda in his capacity as
Deputy Commissioner, which was his position at that time.
However, Dzurenda never saw that letter until after this
lawsuit was filed and has no recollection of the plaintiff
ever being on any status other than High Security status.
A copy
of the letter containing these two notations was received by
Warden Erfe's office on August 24, 2010. Warden Erfe
relied on this document to order his subordinates to take
Vandever off High Security status, despite having been
informed that OCPM did not concur with Erfe's
recommendation.
When an
inmate is placed on High Security status, there are
restrictions with respect to housing. Section 14.E provides
that “[a]n inmate placed on High Security Monitoring
shall be housed in a secured call. The inmate shall be moved
to a new cell at a minimum of every 90 days.”
Administrative Directive 9.4, Pl. Trial Ex. 9c, at 11. In
addition, Section ...