United States District Court, D. Connecticut
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER
STEFAN
R. UNDERHILL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
On
February 6, 2019, Jerome Riddick, an inmate currently
confined at the MacDougall-Walker Correctional Institution in
Suffield, Connecticut, brought a complaint pro se
and in forma pauperis under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
against four Connecticut Department of Correction
(“DOC”) officials: Craig Burns, Warden Nick
Rodriguez, Warden William Mulligan, and District
Administrator Edward Maldonado. Compl., Doc. No. 1. Riddick
claims that the defendants violated his Eighth Amendment
protection against cruel and unusual punishment by subjecting
him to unnecessarily restrictive conditions of confinement
over the past four years, despite his mental illnesses. For
the following reasons, the complaint is dismissed without
prejudice.
I.
Standard of Review
Under
28 U.S.C. § 1915A, I 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. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A. 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 plausible 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. Nevertheless, it is
well-established that “[p]ro se
complaints ‘must be construed liberally and interpreted
to raise the strongest arguments that they
suggest.'” Sykes v. Bank of Am., 723 F.3d
399, 403 (2d Cir. 2013) (quoting Triestman v. Fed. Bureau
of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474 (2d Cir. 2006)); see
also Tracy v. Freshwater, 623 F.3d 90, 101-02 (2d Cir.
2010) (discussing special rules of solicitude for pro
se litigants).
II.
Analysis
Riddick
claims that the defendants have continuously subjected him to
unnecessarily restrictive confinement conditions by depriving
him of his personal property, placing him in punitive
segregation at various times, issuing misconduct reports
against him, denying him telephone, commissary and recreation
privileges, and/or subjecting him to “physical and
psychological torture.” Compl., Doc. No. 1 at 2-7.
These conditions have caused Riddick to engage in acts of
self-harm such as banging his head against the cell door.
Id. at 4. Riddick alleges that this misconduct has
been ongoing since February 2015. Id. at 5. His
complaint, however, is factually overbroad and does not
provide the defendants fair notice of his claim(s). Further,
Riddick has another case already pending in this court that
involves very similar allegations and legal claims.
First,
the complaint consists of generalized allegations that cover
a four-year period, during which Riddick was confined at
different correctional facilities and subjected to different
confinement conditions. See Compl., Doc. No. 1. Rule
8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a civil
complaint to contain “a short and plain statement of
the claim showing that the [plaintiff] is entitled to
relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). Each allegation in the
complaint “must be simple, concise, and direct.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(d)(1). The purpose of Rule 8 is “to
permit the defendant to have a fair understanding of what the
plaintiff is complaining about and to know whether there is a
legal basis for recovery[.]” Ricciutti v. N.Y.C.
Trans. Auth., 941 F.2d 119, 123 (2d Cir. 1991). The
complaint here is much too overbroad to satisfy Rule 8, and,
further, it does not provide the defendants with fair notice
of Riddick's Eighth Amendment claims. It is unclear how
each defendant was personally involved, or when and where the
restrictive confinement conditions and/or deprivations
occurred. The defendants cannot be expected to defend
Riddick's general claims of unconstitutional conditions
of confinement, which allegedly took place over a four-year
period at different locations. Therefore, the complaint is
subject to dismissal for failure to comply with Rule 8.
Second,
the complaint is also subject to dismissal under the prior
pending action doctrine, which provides that where two
lawsuits with the same claims are filed in the same court,
“the first suit [filed] should have priority.”
Adam v. Jacobs, 950 F.2d 89, 92 (2d Cir. 1991);
see also Webb v. Arnone, 2018 WL 3651333, at *4 (D.
Conn. Aug. 1, 2018). “In administering its docket, a
district court may dismiss a second suit as duplicative of an
earlier suit, unless there are special circumstances …
that favor giving priority to the second.” Taylor
v. Rodriguez, 238 F.3d 188, 197 (2d Cir. 2001).
The
allegations in this complaint resemble many of the same
allegations and legal claims Riddick previously made in
Al-Bukhari v. Semple, No. 3:15-cv-322 (SRU). That
case involves constitutional claims regarding Riddick's
placement in administrative segregation or other restrictive
confinement and denial of mental health treatment at various
facilities from March 2014 to August 2017. See Al-Bukhari
v. Semple, No. 15-cv-322, Order, Doc. No. 111. Most of
the facts alleged in this case, which concern confinement
conditions dating back to February 2015, clearly fall within
the time period covered by Al-Bukhari, No.
3:15-cv-322. Thus, this case appears duplicative of the prior
pending civil action.
ORDERS
The
case is dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply
with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and because it is
barred by the prior pending action doctrine. To the extent
Riddick can comply with Rule 8 and allege facts that would
differentiate this case from Al-Bukhari, No.
3:15-cv-322, he may file an amended complaint within
forty-five (45) days from the date of this Order. The amended
complaint must be limited to events that occurred after
August of 2017 and allege specific facts (not just legal
arguments) showing how each defendant was personally involved
in the constitutional deprivations. Failure to file an
...