United States District Court, D. Connecticut
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER
MICHAEL P. SHEA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
23, 2019, the plaintiff, Precell Whitaker, a state prisoner
currently confined at the Corrigan-Radgowski Correctional
Center (“CRCC”) in Uncasville, Connecticut, filed
a civil complaint pro se under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against
the CRCC Mail Room for withholding his mail, specifically,
his magazines which he receives weekly and monthly. ECF No.
1, p.12. He seeks monetary damages for what he claims is
“unlawful mail tampering.” Id. For the
following reasons, the complaint is dismissed without
prejudice and Whitaker will receive an opportunity to amend.
Standard of Review
28 U.S.C. § 1915A, 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. 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.” Bell Atlantic, 550 U.S. at 570.
“A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff
pleads factual content that allows the [C]ourt to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at 678
(citing Bell Atlantic, 550 U.S. at 556).
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 America, 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).
plaintiff “ha[s] reason to believe” that,
beginning on May 26, 2019, the CRCC mailroom has been
withholding several issues of twelve different magazines to
which he has subscribed. ECF No. 1, p.12. After he contacted
the mailroom about the issue, he received a response stating
that the magazines “have been sent for renew[al], and
[the plaintiff] will receive them when they are
returned.” Id. The plaintiff followed up with
the mailroom on July 9, 2019 but did not receive a response.
Id. As of July 17, 2019, he has not received his
order to maintain a § 1983 action, two essential
elements must be present: (1) the conduct complained of must
have been committed by a person acting under color of state
law, and (2) the conduct complained of must have deprived a
person of the rights, privileges or immunities secured by the
federal constitution or laws.” Martin v.
Lociccero, 917 F.Supp. 178, 180-81 (W.D.N.Y. 1995)
(citing Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 535
(1981)). The “CRCC mail room” is not a person
within the meaning of § 1983. See Will v. Michigan
Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989) (state
agency not a person within meaning of § 1983). Moreover,
the plaintiff has not alleged how the withholding of his
magazines violated his rights or protections under the United
States Constitution. Therefore, the plaintiff has failed to
state a plausible claim for relief under § 1983.
complaint is hereby dismissed without prejudice. The clerk is
directed to close this case. If the plaintiff believes he can
state a plausible constitutional claim against one or more
persons acting under color of state law, he may file a motion
to reopen this case and attach an amended complaint within
thirty (30) days from the date of this Order. The amended
complaint must allege facts showing each defendant's
personal involvement in the constitutional deprivation(s) and
facts showing that the plaintiff exhausted his administrative
remedies prior to commencing suit under 42 U.S.C. ...