United States District Court, D. Connecticut
REVIEW OF AMENDED COMPLAINT (DE#20)
A. DOOLEY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
August 13, 2018, Plaintiff, Robert Parkman, an inmate
currently confined at the Brooklyn Correctional Institution
in Connecticut, brought a civil action pro se
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Attorney William
O'Connor, Probation Officer Justin Quick, and an
unidentified supervisory official in the state's Office
of Adult Probation. Compl. (DE#1). He sought “mental
and emotional relief” for what appeared to be a claim
that the defendants wrongfully placed him in a “sex
offender special unit, ” even though he only pled
guilty to unlawful restraint. Id. at 6. On May 6,
2019, this Court dismissed the due process claim without
prejudice because Plaintiff failed to allege facts showing
that he was burdened by the stigma of being placed in a sex
offender treatment program or facts showing the
defendants' personal involvement in the program
placement. Initial Review Order (DE#13).
dismissing his claim without prejudice, the Court
instructed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint alleging
facts showing the following:
(1) A clear statement as to whether Plaintiff is suing
Defendants in their individual capacities, their official
capacities, or both;
(2) A clear statement as to the type of relief sought (i.e.
money damages, injunctive relief, and/or declaratory relief);
(3) An explanation of the “sex offender special
unit” and specific facts showing that the placement in
the unit imposed on Plaintiff a burden or alteration of his
status or rights;
(4) Facts showing that the placement in the unit was based on
false information; and
(5) If sued in their individual capacities for damages, facts
showing Defendants personal involvement in the sex offender
classification and/or placement.
Review Order at 8. On June 25, 2019, Plaintiff filed the
instant amended complaint naming Probation Officer Quick and
Probation Supervisor Kevin Lawrence as Defendants. Am. Compl.
(DE#20). For the following reasons, the Court will permit the
amended complaint to proceed.
March 8, 2016, Plaintiff pleaded guilty to unlawful restraint
in the first degree and was sentenced to five years of
imprisonment, execution suspended after one year, and three
years of probation. Am. Compl. at 5; Case Detail, State
v. Parkman, No. HHD-CR15-0679258-T (Conn. Super. Ct.
Mar. 8, 2016). Plaintiff had also been charged with
sexual assault in the first degree, but the state later
dismissed that charge. Compl. at 5; Am. Compl. at 12. One
year later, Plaintiff was released from Department of
Correction (“DOC”) custody and began his
probationary term. Am. Compl. at 5. Conditions of probation
included that the plaintiff have no contact with the victim,
drive only with a valid license, and complete an alcohol
treatment program. Id.
before he was discharged from DOC custody, Plaintiff met with
two counselors who discussed with him the nature of his case.
Am. Compl. at 5. One of the counselors told him that, based
on the allegations in the police report and his guilty plea
to the unlawful restraint charge, his “sex score”
would be raised to level three. Id. at 5, 11.
Plaintiff contested this decision and did not understand why
his score was being raised. Id. at 5. He later
learned that Supervisor Lawrence had placed him in the
“sex offender unit” based on his conviction for
unlawful restraint. Id. at 5-6.
6, 2016 after he was released, Plaintiff met with Officer
Quick at the Office of Adult Probation and signed some
paperwork. Am. Compl. at 5. At that meeting, Quick informed
Plaintiff that he had set an appointment for him with The
Connection, Inc. Id. A woman from The Connection,
Inc. gave Plaintiff a booklet outlining the program, telling
him what he cannot do as a sex offender. Id.
Plaintiff was shocked upon hearing the information because he
had not been convicted of a sex offense. Id. He told
Quick that he was not convicted of a sex offense and that he
did not have a court order for mandatory sex offender
treatment, but Quick dismissed his complaints. Id.
the next probation appointment on July 11, Quick arranged a
phone call with Plaintiff's attorney, Stephen Cashman.
Am. Compl. at 6. Cashman told Quick that Plaintiff was not
legally bound by the conditions of the sex offender unit and
instructed Plaintiff to only sign standard probation
paperwork. Id. Cashman then asked Quick to permit
Plaintiff some time to provide ...