United States District Court, D. Connecticut
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER
A. Dooley, United States District Judge.
plaintiff, Douglas George Martin (“Martin”), was
confined at the Cheshire Correctional Institution when he
filed this action against Correctional Officers Pelletier and
Doccio. He alleges that the defendants were deliberately
indifferent to his safety when they reassigned an inmate, who
had previously threatened to harm him, to be his cellmate.
For the reasons set forth below, the complaint is dismissed
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
20, 2018, Martin was confined in B-Block at Garner
Correctional Institution. See Compl. at 5 ¶ 1.
Between 2:30 and 3:00 p.m. on that date, Martin informed
Correctional Officers Pelletier and Doccio that he was having
problems with his cellmate, Jeffrey Thominson. See
Id. After eating dinner, Martin informed Officers
Pelletier and Doccio that the issues with his cellmate had
escalated, his cellmate had threatened him, and he did not
feel safe in the cell with his cellmate. See Id.
¶ 2 & at 9. Officers Pelletier and Doccio directed
Mr. Cosano to speak to Martin regarding his concerns about
his cellmate. See Id. ¶ 3. After Mr. Cosano
spoke to Martin, Officers Pelletier and Doccio moved
Martin's cellmate to another cell because of the problems
that Martin had described between himself and his cellmate.
23, 2018, Officers Pelletier and Doccio moved Inmate
Thominson back into Martin's cell. See Id. at 6
¶ 4. Within minutes of being placed in the cell, Inmate
Thominson assaulted Martin by kicking his head against the
wall. See Id. ¶ 5. Inmate Thominson later
confirmed that Officers Pelletier and Doccio had moved him
from Martin's cell on May 20, 2018 because he had
threatened to harm Martin. See Id. ¶¶ 6-7.
contends that Officers Pelletier and Doccio violated his
Eighth Amendment rights by failing to protect him from harm
from his cellmate. For relief, he seeks monetary damages.
does not indicate whether he sues the defendants in their
individual capacities or their official capacities or both
capacities. To the extent that he seeks money damages from
the defendants in their official capacities, such a request
for relief is barred by the Eleventh Amendment. See
Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159 (1985) (Eleventh
Amendment, which protects the state from suits for monetary
relief, also protects state officials sued for damages in
their official capacity); Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S.
332, 342 (1979) (Section 1983 does not override a state's
Eleventh Amendment immunity). Accordingly, the claims for
monetary damages against the defendants in their official
capacities are dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. §
Amendment Claim - ...