United States District Court, D. Connecticut
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER
A. BOLDEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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.
following reasons, the Court DISMISSES Mr.
Tyus' class claims and declines to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over the surviving state-law claims.
AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
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.
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.
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.
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.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
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.
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).
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 ...