United States District Court, D. Connecticut
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER
A. Dooley United States District Judge.
plaintiff, Marquice Hawkins (“Hawkins”), is
currently incarcerated at Carl Robinson Correctional
Institution (“Carl Robinson”). He has filed an
amended complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against three
members of the New London Police Department and nine members
of the Middletown Police Department regarding a search and
seizure that occurred on October 7, 2013 in Middletown,
Connecticut. For the reasons set forth below, the amended
complaint is dismissed.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), the court must review
prisoner civil complaints against governmental actors and
“dismiss ... any portion of [a] complaint [that] is
frivolous, malicious, or 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. Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure requires that a complaint contain “a
short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2).
detailed allegations are not required, “a complaint
must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to
state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. A
claim has facial plausibility when a plaintiff pleads factual
content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). A
complaint that includes only “‘labels and
conclusions,' ‘a formulaic recitation of the
elements of a cause of action' or ‘naked
assertion[s]' devoid of ‘further factual
enhancement, '” does not meet the facial
plausibility standard. Id. (quoting Bell Atl.
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 557 (2007)).
Although courts still have an obligation to interpret
“a pro se complaint liberally, ” the
complaint must include sufficient factual allegations to meet
the standard of facial plausibility. See Harris v.
Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir. 2009) (citations
Detectives Christopher Kramer and William Pero and Sergeant
Pickett of the New London Police Department and Detectives
Jeffrey Laskowski, Robert Kraeger, Frederick Dirga, DeFrance
and Rowland, Lieutenant Delmauro, Sergeants Petrulis and
White and Officer Valentine of the Middletown Police
Department are named as defendants. See Am. Compl.
at 2-3, 11. At 12:30 p.m. on October 7, 2013, Detective
Kramer informed officers in the Middletown Police Department
that a stolen vehicle had been used in the commission of a
home invasion in New London the previous evening and that the
vehicle could be found at the Enterprise Rent-A-Car lot in
Middletown, Connecticut. See Id. at 4 & 11
¶¶ 1-2. At 1:35 p.m., as Hawkins attempted to
return a rental car to the Enterprise lot, Middletown police
officers stopped him to investigate the allegation regarding
the stolen vehicle that had been used in the commission of
the home invasion. See Id. at 4 ¶ 4. At the
scene, officers forced Hawkins to lie face down “at
rifle point.” See Id. Detective Laskowski
handcuffed and questioned Hawkins “at rifle
point” while he lay face down and other officers
confiscated his cellular phone and $767.00 in cash. See
Id. ¶¶ 5-6 & at 6 ¶ 21. An
unidentified law enforcement officer placed Hawkins in a
police car and held him “per New London Police
Detectives request.” See Id. at 4 ¶ 5, 7.
Detective Kraeger transported Hawkins to the Middletown
Police Department. See Id. at 5 ¶ 8.
Kramer and Pero interrogated Hawkins for four and one-half
hours and then released him without charging him. See
Id. ¶ 9. Before leaving the station, Hawkins
requested the return of his telephone, money, shoes and
jacket, but Detective Laskowski and unidentified New London
Detectives denied his requests. See Id. ¶ 10.
walked home in the rain without his telephone, money, shoes
or jacket, but returned to the station later that evening
seeking the return of those items. See Id. ¶
12. The officer on duty refused to return Hawkins' items
of property. See id.
Kraeger initially seized his cellular phone and money and
Detectives Pero and Kramer seized his jacket and shoes.
See Id. ¶ 14. Detective Kraeger subsequently
gave Hawkins' cellular phone to Detectives Pero and
Kramer. See Id. at 4 ¶ 15. Hawkins' money
was later seized under “asset forfeiture.”
did not receive a receipt for his items of property.
Id. at 6 ¶ 20. Hawkins alleges that his celluar
phone is worth $500.00 and that he owes $1, 000.00 for the
termination of his phone contract. See Id. ¶
Kramer and Pero subsequently used the items of property
seized from Hawkins on October 7, 2013 to secure a criminal
conviction against him.See Id. at 8 ¶ 35. As of
the filing of the amended complaint, Hawkins had served four
and one-half years of the sentence imposed pursuant to that
conviction. Id. at ¶ 33. In his demand for
relief, Hawkins seeks monetary damages, reimbursement for the
items of his property seized by the defendants, termination
of the defendants from their jobs, criminal ...