United States District Court, D. Connecticut
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §
1915A
Jeffrey Alker Meyer United States District Judge
Plaintiff
Wilson Velez is a pre-trial detainee in the custody of the
MacDougall-Walker Correctional Institution.[1] He has filed a
civil rights complaint pro se and in forma
pauperis to challenge his security designation and
confinement. Based on my initial review pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A, I conclude that Velez's claims should be
served on all named defendants.
Background
The
following allegations are accepted as true for the purposes
of the Court's initial review. Velez brings suit against
Director of Security Santiago, SRG Coordinator John Aldi, a
John Doe DR Investigator at Hartford CC, a Jane Doe DHO
Officer at Hartford CC, and District Administrator Edward
Maldonado.
Velez
arrived at the Hartford Correctional Center on April 5, 2018,
and roughly one month later on May 7, he was “given a
paper saying ‘pending SRG/Inmate conflict.'”
Doc. #1 at 5 (¶¶ 1-2). A John Doe DR Investigator
came to his cell three days later on May 10, and told him to
sign the Security Risk Group (SRG)/conflict form “so he
[could] hurry up and take [Velez] to the gang program.”
Ibid. (¶ 6). Velez does not state whether he
signed the form. Velez alleges that the DR Investigator did
not give him a disciplinary ticket because he had been
designated as having a gang affiliation with the Latin Kings
by law enforcement. Id. at 6 (¶¶ 4-5). The
investigator also did not produce a law enforcement report
for Velez to review, and otherwise ignored Velez's
objections that he had renounced affiliation with the Latin
Kings in 2017. Ibid. (¶¶ 6-10).
On May
14, 2018, Velez attended a Disciplinary Review hearing
“without a ticket nor a report from law enforcement to
challenge it.” Id. at 18 (¶ 11). Although
he attempted to speak in his own defense, the Jane Doe
hearing officer told him that his efforts were futile because
he would be found guilty based on the law enforcement gang
designation. Ibid. (¶ 12). Although Velez asked
to be represented by counsel at the hearing, ibid.
(¶ 13), his request was denied and the hearing officer
upheld his SRG designation, ibid. (¶ 14).
On May
21, 2018, Velez was transferred to the MacDougall-Walker
Correctional Institution where he was put in a disciplinary
“ticket group” and housed in the B2 unit. Again,
Velez was not given a disciplinary ticket. Ibid.
(¶¶ 15-16). Velez attempted to contest his SRG
designation with John Aldi who was the SRG coordinator at
MacDougall-Walker, but Aldi reiterated that Velez was thought
to have an influential position in the Latin Kings
organization, and that his designation as a gang affiliate by
law enforcement was a determinant of his guilt. Velez
protested, but Aldi disclaimed responsibility for the
outcome. Id. at 18-19 (¶¶ 17-21). Velez
asserts that he was only placed in the SRG program so that
corrections officials could “defraud the Feds for more
money.” Id. at 20 (¶ 31).
In June
2018, Velez filed three requests to appeal his SRG
determination with the DOC. Velez first filed an appeal
request on June 4. When defendant Santiago responded on June
15, 2018, he informed Velez in writing that Velez had not
received a “disciplinary report, ” and was not at
that time subject to any disciplinary sanctions. Rather,
Velez was designated as a Latin King Member and given a
hearing regarding his SRG designation. Doc. #1 at 12.
Velez
filed a second appeal on June 10, 2018. Defendant Aldi
reviewed Velez's June 10 appeal request, and responded on
July 7 to inform Velez that “the information that was
provided by outside law enforcement” regarding his gang
affiliation status “was sufficient enough to bring
[him] to the hearing where [he] was reclassified as a Latin
King member.” Id. at 10.
Velez
appealed again on June 14. Santiago reviewed Velez's June
14 appeal request and responded on July 6, 2018, to reaffirm
the statement he made. Velez appealed his SRG determination
through the Inmate Administrative Remedy Procedure and after
two delays, id. at 8-9, he received a letter from
defendant Maldonado on September 5, 2018, finding “no
significant errors with the due process” underlying
Velez's SRG designation and upholding that designation,
id. at 13. Maldonado also informed Velez that his
“District Level decision [was] not subject to
appeal.” Ibid.
Velez
states that the decision to place him in administrative
segregation at Walker was not reviewed by the SRG review
committee. Id. at 20 (¶ 28). He did not receive
notice or a hearing before he was placed in the SRG program
phase 2. Ibid. (¶¶ 28-30). He has
experienced mental and emotional distress as a result of
being placed in administrative segregation, in addition to
difficulty defending his criminal case, and limited time with
family who can only visit and phone the facility on a
restricted basis. Ibid. (¶¶ 32-35).
Discussion
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court must review a
prisoner's civil complaint against a governmental entity
or governmental actors and “identify cognizable claims
or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if
the complaint-(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state
a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks
monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such
relief.” If the prisoner is proceeding pro se,
the allegations of the complaint must be read liberally to
raise the strongest arguments that they suggest. See
Tracy v. Freshwater, 623 F.3d 90, 101-02 (2d Cir. 2010).
In
recent years, the Supreme Court has set forth a threshold
“plausibility” pleading standard for courts to
evaluate the adequacy of allegations in federal court
complaints. A complaint must allege enough facts-as distinct
from legal conclusions-that give rise to plausible grounds
for relief. See, e.g., Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). Notwithstanding the
rule of liberal interpretation of a pro se
complaint, a pro se complaint may not survive
dismissal if its ...