Tyus v. Semple

          INITIAL REVIEW ORDER

          VICTOR A. BOLDEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Gerjuan Tyus, currently incarcerated at Corrigan-Radgowski Correctional Center in Uncasville, Connecticut, and proceeding pro se, sued Commissioner Scott Semple; Former Commissioners James Dzurenda, Leo Arnone, Theresa Lantz, James Armstrong, and Lawrence Meachum; Warden Henry Falcone; Director of Engineering and Facilities Management Steven Link; Former Director of Engineering and Facilities Management David Batten; and John Does 1-3 (collectively “Defendants”) for deliberate indifference under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Complaint, ECF No. 1(“Compl.”).

         For the following reasons, the Court DISMISSES Mr. Tyus' class claims and declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the surviving state-law claims.

         I.FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

         A. Factual Allegations

         Incarcerated at Garner Correctional Institution (“Garner”) from February 24, 2010, until December 14, 2017, Mr. Tyus alleges that Defendants should have been aware of the possibility of radon exposure at Garner since its construction in 1992. In December 2013 and January 2014, Garner was tested for radon. When testing showed high radon levels, a radon mitigation system allegedly was installed.

         No testing allegedly was performed in the inmate housing units and the radon mitigation system allegedly was not installed in the inmate housing units. Correctional staff allegedly were informed of the radon exposure, but inmates allegedly were not told. Mr. Tyus allegedly has not been tested for radon exposure, has not been diagnosed with any medical conditions associated with redon exposure, and has not exhibited any symptoms of radon exposure.

         B. Procedural History

         On January 14, 2019, Mr. Tyus filed this Complaint against Defendants. Complaint, ECF No. 1. On the same day, he moved to proceed in forma pauperis. Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2.

         On January 17, 2019, the Court referred the in forma pauperis to Magistrate Judge William I. Garfinkel. Order Referring Case, ECF No. 6. The following day, Magistrate Judge Garfinkel granted Mr. Tyus' motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Order Granting Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 7.

         II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

         Under section 1915A of title 28 of the United States Code, the court must review prisoner civil complaints 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. Id.

         In reviewing a pro se complaint, the court must assume the truth of the allegations, and interpret them liberally to “raise the strongest arguments [they] suggest[].” Abbas v. Dixon, 480 F.3d 636, 639 (2d Cir. 2007). Although detailed allegations are not required, the complaint must include sufficient facts to afford the defendants fair notice of the claims and the grounds upon which they 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).

         The plaintiff must plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “‘A document filed pro se is to be liberally construed and a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.'” Boykin v. KeyCorp., 521 F.3d 202, 214 (2d Cir. 2008) (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007)). However, notwithstanding this liberal interpretation, a pro se complaint will not survive ...