United States District Court, D. Connecticut
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER
R. Underhill United States District Judge
plaintiff, Chaz Gulley (“Gulley”), is
incarcerated at Bridgeport Correctional Center. He has filed
a civil rights action against Captain Ogando, Warden
Mulligan, Deputy Warden Roach, Lieutenant Delpeschio,
Correctional Officers Harris, Annear, Baez, Sullivan, Brown
and Brito, Nurse Kris, John Doe 1 and John Doe 2. For the
reasons set forth below, the complaint is dismissed in part.
Standard of Review
section 1915A of Title 28 of the United States Code, I must
review prisoner civil complaints and dismiss any portion of
the 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. 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
grounds upon which they are based and to demonstrate a
plausible right to relief. Bell Atl. Corp. 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).
early October 2018, Correctional Officer Annear was involved
in a “confrontation with [Gulley] during which he
retaliated against Gulley. See Compl. at 4 ¶
13. After the incident, Lieutenant Concepcion allegedly
removed Officer Annear from the unit and assigned another
officer to the unit in place of Officer Annear. See
Id. Gulley asked Deputy Warden Roach to preserve the
videotape of the incident involving himself and Officer
Annear. See Id. Deputy Warden Roach and Warden
Mulligan informed Gulley that they would investigate the
incident and keep Officer Annear separated from him. See
Id. ¶ 14.
November 28, 2018, Gulley was housed in B-2 Unit in the
Walker Building at MacDougall-Walker Correctional
Institution. See Id. at 3 ¶ 7. Gulley covered
the window in his cell door to protest the treatment that he
had received during his confinement in the security risk
group program. See Id. In response, officers
escorted him to the restrictive housing unit. See
Id. ¶ 8. On November 29, 2018, a prison official
informed Gulley that he would not be transferred to Northern
Correctional Institution until he completed fourteen days in
punitive segregation. See Id. ¶ 9.
November 30, 2018, Gulley covered the window of his cell door
in the restrictive housing unit because Captain Ogando had
informed him that he would not be able to make a legal
telephone call to Hope Metcalf that day. See Id. at
4 ¶ 15. At that time, Gulley was confined with in-cell
restraints. See Id. ¶ 16. In response to
Gulley's conduct in covering the window in his cell door,
Captain Ogando ordered officers to put a black box over his
wrist restraints. See Id. Because Gulley was
involved in litigation challenging the use of restraints on
inmates as punishment, he attempted to stand up in protest as
the officers put the black box over his wrist restraints.
See Id. at 5 ¶ 17. As a result of Gulley's
resistance to the use of the black box, Captain Ogando
ordered officers to place Gulley on stationary, four-point
restraints. See Id. ¶ 18.
applying the four-point restraints, the officers deliberately
left the restraint on his right arm loose. See Id.
¶ 19. Shortly, after the restraints had been applied and
the officers had left Gulley's cell, he slipped out of
the restraint on his right arm. See Id. ¶¶
20-21. Correctional Officers Baez, Annear and Harris entered
Gulley's cell and punched and kicked him in the face,
back and neck as he lay in a contorted position off the bunk.
See Id. ¶ 22. Correctional Officer Brito was in
charge of videotaping the incident, but failed to turn on the
videorecorder. See Id. Captain Ogando and Lieutenant
Delpeschio sprayed Gulley in the face and body with a
chemical agent. See Id. at 6 ¶ 23.
escorted Gulley to the shower to be decontaminated from the
chemical agent residue. See Id. ¶ 24. Officers
escorted Gulley back to the same cell and placed him in
four-point restraints. See Id. ¶ 25. No. one
decontaminated the cell from the chemical agent residue
before placing Gulley back in it. See id.
the re-application of restraints, Correctional Officer
Sullivan slammed his closed fist into Gulley's shoulder
repeatedly. See Id. ¶ 27. Correctional Officer
Sullivan was a named defendant in another lawsuit filed by
Gulley, No. 3:18cv941(SRU). See Id. Correctional
Officer Brown, who had a relationship with Correctional
Officer Sullivan, choked Gulley as he jerked and squirmed.
Delpeschio provided Gulley with a Ferguson gown to wear
during his confinement in four-point restraints instead of
Gulley's own clothes. See Id. ¶ 28. Gulley
received his clothes later that day when officials downgraded
his status and removed him from four-point restraints.
See Id. at 7 ¶ 29. Lieutenant Delpeschio issued
Gulley a disciplinary report for breaking one of the
restraints, but another lieutenant later dismissed the
charge. See Id. at 5 ¶ 19.
contends that the defendants subjected him to excessive use
of force in violation of the Eighth Amendment and that Nurse
Kris was deliberately indifferent to his medical needs in
violation of the Eighth Amendment. I construe the complaint
as also asserting a First Amendment retaliation claim and
several Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to health or
Official Capacity Claims
seeks monetary damages and sues the defendants in their
individual and official capacities. To the extent that Gulley
seeks monetary relief from the defendants in their official
capacities, such a request 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 damages against the defendants in
their official capacities are dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.