United States District Court, D. Connecticut
LUIS A. DELGADO, Plaintiff,
OFFICER KEVIN OCASIO, et al., Defendants.
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER
MICHAEL P. SHEA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
plaintiff, Luis A. Delgado, is incarcerated at the Garner
Correctional Institution (“Garner”) in Newtown,
Connecticut. He has filed a civil rights complaint under 42
U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1986, 1988 against
Correctional Officers Kevin Ocasio, Matthew Colby, William
St. John, Anthony Thibodeau, and John Doe. The plaintiff
alleges inter alia that Officers Ocasio, Colby, St.
John, and Thibodeau subjected him to excessive force during
his confinement at Corrigan Correctional Institution
(“Corrigan”). For the reasons set forth below,
the court will dismiss the complaint in part.
Standard of Review
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), the court must review prisoner
civil complaints against governmental actors and
“dismiss ... any portion of [a] 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.” Id. Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure requires that a complaint contain “a
short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2).
detailed allegations are not required, “a complaint
must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to
state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. A
claim has facial plausibility when a plaintiff pleads factual
content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). A
complaint that includes only “‘labels and
conclusions,' ‘a formulaic recitation of the
elements of a cause of action' or ‘naked
assertion[s]' devoid of ‘further factual
enhancement, '” does not meet the facial
plausibility standard. Id. (quoting Bell Atl.
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 557 (2007)).
Although courts have an obligation to interpret “a
pro se complaint liberally, ” the complaint
must still include sufficient factual allegations to meet the
standard of facial plausibility. See Harris v.
Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir. 2009) (citations
25, 2017, prior to being transported to Garner from Corrigan,
Officer Ocasio ordered the plaintiff to submit to a strip
search. See Compl. at 3 ¶¶ 7-8. After
removing his clothes, the plaintiff dropped them on the floor
instead of handing them to Officer Ocasio. Id.
¶ 8. Officer Ocasio became enraged and punched the
plaintiff in the face. Id. ¶ 9. After the
plaintiff fell to the floor, Officer Ocasio kicked him in the
head and neck. Id. When Officers Colby, St. John,
and Thibodeau responded to the scene, they punched, slapped,
and kicked the plaintiff. Id. at 4 ¶ 10. During
the use of force, Officers Colby, St. John, and Thibodeau
accused the plaintiff of resisting their efforts to attempt
to gain control over him. Id.
Ocasio, Colby, St. John, and Thibodeau subsequently placed
the plaintiff in handcuffs and ankle restraints and medical
staff members treated the plaintiff's injuries.
Id. ¶¶ 10-11. Later that day Corrigan
transferred the plaintiff to Garner. Id. ¶ 11.
his arrival at Garner, officials placed the plaintiff in a
cell in the segregation unit for fifteen days. Id.
The plaintiff asked Officer John Doe, who worked in the
segregation unit, for an inmate request form and a grievance
form. Id. Officer Doe indicated that he would not
provide the plaintiff with either form. Id.
after his arrival at Garner, a mental health staff member
diagnosed the plaintiff as suffering from post-traumatic
stress disorder and anxiety and prescribed medication to
treat the conditions. Id. at 5 ¶ 13. The
plaintiff continues to suffer from anxiety, depression, and
back pain. Id. ¶ 14.
plaintiff contends that the defendants violated his Fifth,
Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. In addition to his
federal constitutional claims, the plaintiff asserts several
state law claims.
Section 1983 - Interference with Administrative
plaintiff alleges that he was unable to exhaust his
administrative remedies regarding the conduct of Officers
Ocasio, Colby, St. John, and Thibodeau because Officer Doe
refused to provide him with the necessary grievance forms. He
claims that Officer Doe violated his due process rights under
the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment applies only to actions
by the United States government and federal employees.
See, e.g., Dusenbery v. United States, 534
U.S. 161, 167 (2002) (holding that the Fifth Amendment's
due process clause only protects citizens against the conduct
of federal government officials, not state officials). The
plaintiff is not suing federal officials. Accordingly, the
Fifth Amendment due process claim is dismissed as lacking an
arguable legal basis. See 28 U.S.C. §