United States District Court, D. Connecticut
VANESSA L. BRYANT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Bamm Oh, currently confined at Corrigan-Radgowski
Correctional Center in Uncasville, Connecticut, filed this
complaint pro se under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiff claims that defendants Jarrin and Batista use
excessive force against him and Warden Corcella took no
action when informed of the incident. Plaintiff seeks damages
from the defendants in individual and official capacities.
28 U.S.C. § 1915A (2000), the court must review prisoner
civil complaints and dismiss any portion of the complaint
that is frivolous or malicious, that 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. This requirement applies both when plaintiff
pays the filing fee and when she proceeds in forma
pauperis. See Carr v. Dvorin, 171 F.3d 115, 116
(2d Cir. 1999) (per curiam).
reviewing a pro se complaint, the court must assume
the truth of the allegations, and interpret them liberally to
“raise the strongest arguments [they] suggest.”
Abbas v. Dixon, 480 F.3d 636, 639 (2d Cir. 2007).
Although detailed allegations are not required, the complaint
must include sufficient facts to afford the defendants fair
notice of the claims and the grounds upon which they are
based and to demonstrate a right to relief. Bell Atlantic
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 “pro 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
March 20, 2018, plaintiff returned to the Golf-Unit day room
at Garner Correctional Institution after visiting the medical
unit. Doc. #1 ¶ 1. He asked Officer Jarrin if he could
get the water jug for his C-PAP machine from his friend's
cell. Officer Jarrin agreed and opened the inmate's cell.
Id. ¶ 2. As plaintiff leaned into the cell to
pick up the jug, Officer Jarrin asked plaintiff what he was
doing in the cell and told him that he could not enter
another inmate's cell. Id. ¶¶ 3-4.
Plaintiff apologized. Id. ¶ 5.
approached the control bubble and put out his hand. Officer
Jarrin told plaintiff not to touch him and said that he could
not touch a correctional officer. Id. ¶ 6.
Plaintiff again apologized and told Officer Jarrin not to
speak to him that way. Officer Jarrin asked why not and said
that plaintiff was not going to do anything. Id.
¶ 7. Plaintiff put down his water jug and came around to
grab his ID card. Id. ¶ 8. Plaintiff
characterizes the exchange as him apologizing and Officer
Jarrin being verbally aggressive. Id.
Batista told plaintiff to lock up in his cell. Id.
¶ 9. As plaintiff turned, Officer Jarrin tackled him to
the ground, handcuffed him and held him down. Id.
¶ 10. Plaintiff was not resisting and could not move.
Officers Batista and Jarrin repeatedly punched plaintiff in
the mouth and nose with closed fists and called a code
orange. Id. ¶ 11.
other officers responded to the code, they got plaintiff up
and brought him to a table in the day room. His nose and
mouth were full of blood. Id. ¶¶ 12-13.
When medical staff tried to clean his face, plaintiff told
them not to touch him until pictures were taken of his
injuries. Id. ¶¶ 14-15.
Langenheim ordered that plaintiff be taken to restrictive
housing in Fox Unit. Id. ¶ 16. At this time,
blood was dripping from plaintiff's nose. When he tried
to inhale the blood because it felt uncomfortable, he
sneezed. Id. ¶ 17. Officers were ordered to put
plaintiff to the wall and Lieutenant Langenheim ordered that
a mask be put over plaintiff's face. Id.
was shackled and escorted to restrictive housing. His
handcuffs were very tight. Id. ¶ 18. In the
restrictive housing cell, officers removed plaintiff's
clothing. He was left in the cell, naked, for twenty minutes.
Id. ¶¶ 18-20. Pictures were taken of
plaintiff's face, hands, wrist, nose, and mouth. Medical
staff asked routine questions and left the cell. Plaintiff
was then given boxers and a t-shirt. Id. ¶ 20.
received two disciplinary charges of threats on correctional
employees, one for assault on staff,  and one for attempted
assault on staff. Id. ¶ 21. Plaintiff pleaded
guilty to the threats charges and received fourteen days in
restrictive housing. Id. He had a hearing on the
assault charges. He was found guilty and received concurrent
sanctions of thirty days in restrictive housing. Id.
¶ 22. The following day, plaintiff learned that he was
being placed on chronic discipline status. Id.
Jarrin and his brother both were assigned to restrictive
housing while plaintiff was there. Id. ¶ 24.
Unidentified persons would not respond to plaintiff's
emergency call button. Id. Officer Jarrin and his
brother intimated that they had tampered with plaintiff's
food. Id. ¶ 25.
reported these actions to Warden Corcella. The warden said
that he was not going to transfer Officer Jarrin to another
unit. Id. ¶ 26. Plaintiff remained in
restrictive housing for 79 days, completing his sanctions and
Phase 1 of the Chronic Discipline Program, before he was
transferred to Corrigan-Radgowski Correctional Center.
Id. ¶ 26-27.
asserts a claim for use of excessive force. See Doc.
#1 ¶ 32 (“If the officers and warden officer
Jarrin officer Batista and Warden Corcella didn't
physically assault me my prison time would have been
different….”). Plaintiff was a sentenced inmate
at all times relevant to this action. Thus, his claims are
considered under the Eighth Amendment. See Darnell v.
Pineiro, 849 F.3d 17, 29 (2d Cir. 2017) (rights of