United States District Court, D. Connecticut
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C.
Jeffrey Alker Meyer United States District Judge
Myles is a prisoner in the custody of the Connecticut
Department of Correction (“DOC”). He has filed a
complaint pro se and in forma pauperis
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against several DOC officials
stemming from an incident in which he was disciplined because
of his failure to furnish a urine sample. For the reasons
stated below, I will dismiss Myles's complaint without
was a prisoner at the Carl Robinson Correctional Institution
when the relevant events as alleged in his complaint took
place. He has named the following defendants in their
individual and official capacities: Warden Murphy; Captain
Rios; Lieutenants Martinez, Sheehan, and Perez; Officers
Kirchmier, Betances, and Andrews; mental health clinician
Kelly; Angel Quiros; and a defendant identified only as
Burgmyer. Doc. #1 at 2-3.
following facts are alleged in the complaint and are accepted
as true only for purposes of this ruling. On October 26,
2017, at approximately 8:50 a.m., another inmate woke Myles
up because correctional officials had called for him. Doc. #1
at 4 (¶ 1). Myles stood up and went to the
“bubble, ” where he was instructed to get dressed
because he had to leave the unit. Id. (¶ 2).
Myles asked the officer in the bubble where he was going, but
the officer just told him that he would find out when he
dressed and returned. Ibid. Myles then used the
bathroom in his cell, washed up, dressed himself, and
returned to the bubble. Ibid. (¶ 3). The
officer in the bubble then instructed him to go to the
operations unit. Ibid. (¶ 4).
arrived at the operations unit, Officer Kirchmeir told him
that he had to give a urine sample for drug testing because
he was scheduled to go to a halfway house. Ibid.
(¶ 5). Myles told Kirchmeir that he had just urinated
and would need some water to urinate again, but Kirchmeir
denied his request for water. Ibid. (¶¶
6-7). Kirchmeir said that, if Myles did not provide a urine
sample within three hours, he would not be released from the
facility and he would be placed in segregation with a
disciplinary report. Ibid. (¶ 7). Myles said
that he was clean and that he just needed water to produce
more urine. Ibid. (¶ 8). Kirchmeir told him
that DOC regulations prohibited him from having water to help
him urinate, despite the fact that he had just urinated.
Id. at 4-5 (¶ 9). Myles asked Kirchmeir to show
him the rule to which he was referring and to call a
lieutenant supervisor. Id. at 5 (¶ 10).
Kirchmeir told Myles to wait for the lieutenant who was
touring the unit, but he could not find the DOC rule
prohibiting water. Ibid. (¶ 11). Myles offered
to provide a buccal swab, hair sample, or blood sample to
show that he did not have drugs in his system, but Kirchmeir
said that the testing must be done with urine. Ibid.
(¶ 12). Myles pleaded with Kirchmeir for one cup of
water, but Kirchmeir insisted that water was not permitted.
Ibid. (¶ 13).
waiting for the lieutenant to arrive, Myles entered the
restroom two different times under Kirchmeir's
supervision to attempt to give a urine sample, but he was
unable to do so. Ibid. (¶ 14). During that
time, Officer Betances arrived at the unit, and Myles
explained to him the situation. Ibid. (¶ 15).
Betances refused to give Myles any water, also saying that it
was prohibited by DOC regulations. Ibid. (¶
16). Myles asked Betances to show him the rule, and Betances
could not locate the specific rule. Ibid.
(¶¶ 17-18). Nevertheless, Betances still denied him
the opportunity to drink water. Ibid. (¶ 18).
Myles made a third attempt to urinate but was unsuccessful.
Id. at 6 (¶ 20).
thereafter, Lieutenant Martinez arrived, and Myles explained
the situation to her regarding his inability to urinate.
Ibid. (¶ 21). Like Kirchmeir and Betances,
Martinez denied Myles any water, stating that it was
prohibited by DOC regulations. Ibid. (¶ 23).
She also denied Myles the opportunity to provide hair, blood,
or saliva samples. Ibid. (¶ 25). After looking
at the regulations, Martinez later agreed with Myles that
there was no such rule prohibiting inmates from drinking
water prior to giving a urine sample, but she still refused,
claiming that it was “under their own
discretion.” Ibid. (¶ 26). Martinez then
told Myles that, if he did not “squeeze something out
soon, ” then he “must like jail” and
“must not want to go home.” Ibid.
(¶ 27). Myles made a fourth attempt to urinate but was
unable to do so. Ibid. (¶ 28).
point, Myles was halfway through his three-hour allotted time
frame. Ibid. (¶ 29). He spotted Captain Rios in
the area, called her over, and explained to her the
situation. Ibid. (¶¶ 29-30). Rios looked
for the rule referenced by Kirchmeir and Betances but agreed
with Martinez and Myles that no such rule existed.
Ibid. (¶ 31). Rios said that she was sorry, but
because the other officials had already made their decision,
she was not going to permit Myles to have any water.
Ibid. (¶ 32). Myles tried two more times to
urinate before his three-hour time limit expired, but he
continued to be unable to do so. Id. at 6-7 (¶
the time expired, Lieutenant Sheehan called Myles to his
office and asked him why he did not provide a urine sample.
Id. at 7 (¶ 34). Myles explained the entire
situation to Sheehan, but Sheehan told him that “he
[did not] give a shit, ” that “it [was not] his
problem, ” and that because Myles did not urinate he
was going to segregation. Ibid. (¶ 35). Myles
pleaded with Sheehan, but Sheehan responded, “[I]f you
would have just peed, you would be on your way to a halfway
house and I wouldn't have to do paperwork, but since you
didn't, you're going to seg.” Ibid.
(¶ 36). Myles then sat and waited for Sheehan and
Officer Andrews to handcuff him and escort him to
segregation. Ibid. (¶ 37). While waiting,
correctional staff made comments such as “he can't
get it up, ” “he couldn't perform, ”
and “he must love jail.” Ibid. (¶
38). A short time later, Myles was strip searched and placed
in a restrictive housing unit (“RHU”).
Ibid. (¶ 39).
in RHU, Myles became deeply stressed and spoke with Mental
Health Clinician Kelly about the situation. Ibid.
(¶ 40). Kelly, however, was very rude to Myles, telling
him that he “fucked up, ” that “he did this
to [him]self, ” and that if he continued “being
emotional about th[e] situation, she [would] put [him] in a
turtle suit” and keep him in segregation for longer.
couple of days later, Myles attended his disciplinary hearing
and explained the circumstances surrounding his drug test.
Ibid. (¶ 41). Officials nevertheless found him
guilty for refusing to submit to drug testing even though he
had made six attempts to urinate. Ibid. As a result,
Myles was sanctioned with seven days in RHU and fifteen days
loss of good time credits. Id. at 7-8 (¶ 42).
Betances later told him that he felt bad about the situation
because it was wrong for officials to deny him water.
Ibid. (¶ 42).
seven days in RHU, Myles provided a clean urine sample and
was placed back into general population. Id. at 8
(¶¶ 43-44). He filed written grievances and
appealed the disciplinary finding to Warden Murphy and
District Administrator Quiros, but “[n]othing
changed.” Ibid. (¶ 45). Because of the
adverse disciplinary finding, Myles was forced to stay in
prison until March 13, 2018, when he otherwise could have
been sent to a halfway house on October 27, 2017.
Ibid. (¶ 45). The situation also caused him to
experience emotional distress and suicidal thoughts.
Ibid. (¶ 46). When he was finally released from
prison, Myles sought mental health treatment. Ibid.
(¶ 47). He was officially diagnosed with Post-Traumatic
Stress Disorder (“PTSD”) on March 22, 2018.
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 ...