United States District Court, D. Connecticut
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER
A. Dooley United States District Judge
Kevin Victor Llewellyn (“Llewellyn”), currently
confined at Carl Robinson Correctional Institution in
Enfield, Connecticut, filed this complaint pro se
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Llewellyn names twelve
defendants: John Aldi; Peter Murphy; Angel Quiros;
Lieutenants Richardson, Papoosha, and King; Captains Black
and Walsh; and John Does 1-4. He alleges that the defendants
violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights by providing
inadequate notice and an untimely hearing, failing to follow
hearing procedures, punishing him for uncharged conduct, and
upholding an unlawful disciplinary proceeding; his First
Amendment rights by retaliating against him for using the
prison grievance procedures; and his Eighth Amendment rights
by failing to protect him from an inmate assault and
subjecting him to sexual abuse. Llewellyn seeks damages and
injunctive relief. The complaint was received on June 28,
2019, and Llewellyn's motion to proceed in forma
pauperis was granted on July 2, 2019.
section 1915A of title 28 of the United States Code, 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. In 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). see also
Tracy v. Freshwater, 623 F.3d 90, 101-02 (2d Cir. 2010)
(discussing special rules of solicitude for pro se
litigants). 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.
June 28, 2016 and July 7, 2016, Llewellyn was a pretrial
detainee. Doc. No. 1, ¶ 11. On June 28, 2016, Llewellyn
was removed from general population and placed in a
restrictive housing unit (“RHU”). Id.,
¶ 1. He was placed on Administrative Detention pending a
disciplinary hearing on charges of threats and Security Risk
Group (“SRG”) affiliation. Id.,
¶¶ 1-2. On June 29, 2016, Llewellyn plead guilty to
the charge of threats and received sanctions of seven days in
punitive segregation. Id., ¶ 3.
completed his segregation time on July 4, 2016. He did not
receive a hearing for SRG affiliation and was not returned to
general population. Id., ¶ 4. Sometime later,
Disciplinary Investigator Doe 1 asked Llewellyn if he wanted
an advocate. Although Llewellyn said he did, he was not
permitted to choose his advocate or request witnesses.
Id., ¶ 5.
11, 2016, Llewellyn met with Doe 2, the advocate selected for
him. When Llewellyn asked to see the evidence against him,
Doe 2 stated that he was not at liberty to show him the
evidence. Id., ¶ 6. Doe 2 asked Llewellyn to
write a statement for the hearing. Llewellyn stated that he
could not do so without knowing the reason for the charge.
Id., ¶ 7. Doe 2 told Llewellyn that he had
gang-related pictures on social media. Id., ¶
8. Llewellyn then wrote a statement saying that he had no
gang-related pictures on Facebook or Instagram, the only
social media accounts he had. Id., ¶ 9. Doe 2
refused to interview witnesses for Llewellyn. Id.,
SRG hearing was held on July 12, 2016. Id., ¶
12. Before Llewellyn could say anything, Hearing Officer
Lieutenant King stated that she had reviewed the evidence
before the hearing and was finding him guilty based on that
evidence. Id., ¶¶ 13-14. Lieutenant King
refused to show Llewellyn the evidence, claiming she did not
want him to tell other gang members “how we do our
jobs.” Id., ¶ 15.
wrote to defendants Aldi and Papoosha about these due process
violations but received no response. Id., ¶ 18.
District Administrator Murphy denied Llewellyn's appeal,
stating that no due process violation occurred. Id.,
¶ 19. He also stated that Llewellyn had admitted owning
the social media account. Llewellyn claims this was not
possible as he never saw any evidence to be able to
acknowledge ownership. Id., ¶ 20. He denies any
SRG-related conduct. Id., ¶ 21.
September 19, 2016, Llewellyn again received a disciplinary
report for SRG affiliation. Id., ¶ 22. His
hearing was held on September 29, 2016, eight business days
later. Id., ¶ 23. At the hearing, Llewellyn
complained to Hearing Officer Lieutenant Richardson that the
hearing was one day late. Id., ¶ 24. When
Lieutenant Richardson stated that he could continue the
hearing for two ten-day periods, Llewellyn stated that any
continuance had to be documented and requested to see the
documentation. Id., ¶¶ 25-26. Lieutenant
Richardson documented the continuance at the hearing, rather
than before. Id., ¶ 28.
was found guilty on September 29, 2016. Id., ¶
30. Although the disciplinary process summary report
indicates a continuance until October 13, 2016, no other
hearing was held. Id., ¶¶ 31-32. Llewellyn
complained to Disciplinary Coordinator Doe 3 who told
Llewellyn to appeal if he thought his due process rights were
violated. Id., ¶ 33. Llewellyn filed an appeal
on October 9, 2016. Id., ¶ 34. District
Administrator Quiros denied Llewellyn's appeal, stating
the hearing was conducted correctly and there was no due
process failure. Id., ¶ 35.
October 14, 2016, Unit Manager Captain Black placed Llewellyn
in a cell with inmate Gabriel Vega. Id., ¶ 37.
The following day, inmate Vega assaulted Llewellyn. Because
Llewellyn defended himself, both inmates received
disciplinary reports for fighting. Id., ¶ 38.
Shortly after October 15, 2016, Llewellyn learned that inmate
Vega was not permitted in the recreation yard with other
inmates because he was considered “a danger.”
Id., ¶ 42. Llewellyn was placed in the cell
with inmate Vega five days after he appealed his SRG ticket
and after making constant requests to Captain Black to be
released from the SRG Program. Id., ¶ 43. He
believes the placement was retaliatory. Id., ¶
before January 25, 2018, Llewellyn signed renunciation papers
to complete the SRG Program. Id., ¶ 45. He was
supposed to be released on January 25, 2018. Id.,
¶ 46. On February 6, 2018, Llewellyn asked Captain Walsh
why he was still in the SRG Program. Id., ¶ 47.
Captain Walsh said that John Aldi told her that Llewellyn
could not leave the program. Id., ¶ 48.
said that Llewellyn should have received a disciplinary
report for SRG affiliation in August 2017 but did not. He was
requiring Llewellyn to serve the additional two months in the
program that he would have been required to serve if the
disciplinary report had been issued. Id., ¶ 49.
Captain Walsh told Llewellyn that he still could receive a
disciplinary report. She advised him to serve the two months
and “let it go.” Id., ¶ 50. On
February 13, 2018, at Llewellyn's request, Captain Walsh
confirmed in writing what she had told Llewellyn on February
6, 2018. Id., ¶¶ 51-52. Llewellyn
interpreted Captain Walsh's statement that he still could
receive a disciplinary report as a threat to deter him from
grieving the issue. Id., ¶ 53.
served the additional two months in the program and was
scheduled for release on March 25, 2018. Id., ¶
54. In March, Counselor Fiore told Llewellyn that he would
not leave the program until April. Id., ¶ 56.
Counselor Fiore told Llewellyn that Aldi refused to let him
leave because, if he had received a disciplinary report in
August 2017, he would have re-started Phase 4 of the SRG
Program. Id., ¶ 57. Because Captain Salius had
not regressed Llewellyn to re-start Phase 4, Aldi was making
Llewellyn serve the additional month he would have served had
he re-started Phase 4. Id., ¶ 58. Llewellyn
considers Aldi's actions to be taken in retaliation for
filing grievances. Id., ¶ 60.
waiting to be released from the SRG Program, defendant Doe 4
touched Llewellyn sexually while conducting a pat search.
Id., ¶ 62. Defendant Doe 4 had acted
inappropriately before and Llewellyn had addressed the issue.
Id., ¶ 63. Llewellyn reported the incident to
the lieutenant on duty and filed a PREA complaint even though
the lieutenant tried to dissuade him from doing so.
Id., ¶ 64. Shortly thereafter, Llewellyn was
transferred to Cheshire Correctional Institution.
Id., ¶ 65.
alleges that Captain Black retaliated against him for filing
grievances when Captain Black assigned inmate Vega to
Llewllyn's cell. Llewellyn alleges Captain Walsh and Aldi
retaliated against him in violation of his First Amendment
right to free speech by taking ...