United States District Court, D. Connecticut
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER
A. DOOLEY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Jean Karlo Conquistador (“Conquistador”),
currently confined at Bridgeport Correctional Center in
Bridgeport, Connecticut, filed this complaint pro se
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Conquistador asserts claims for
retaliation, deliberate indifference, unreasonable search and
seizure, and harassment against fifteen defendants who work
at Garner Correctional Institution (“Garner”):
Warden Amanda Hannah; Deputy Warden Egan; Captains Hughes, G.
Hurdle, Fahd Syed, and Thomas Kenny; Counselor Supervisor
Calderon; Counselors Elvis Ibiserie, Verrastro, and Darlene
O'Donnell; and Officers Adams, Major, Allegne, Torres,
and Rehm. Conquistador seeks damages and injunctive relief
against the defendants in their individual and official
capacities. The complaint was received on August 19, 2019,
and Conquistador's motion to proceed in forma
pauperis was granted on August 29, 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.
August 14, 2019, Captain Hughes and Officer Major confiscated
Conquistador's legal files and law books. Doc. No. 1,
¶ 1. When questioned by Conquistador, Captain Hughes
stated that they wanted to look at some of Conquistador's
lawsuits. Id. ¶¶ 2-3. Conquistador told
him that going through his papers was against the law.
Id. ¶ 4. Captain Hughes stated that they were
the law and told Conquistador to sue him. Id. ¶
that day, Conquistador complained to Warden Hannah who told
Conquistador that it was not her problem and walked away.
Id. ¶ 6. When Conquistador told Warden Hannah
that he would file a lawsuit against her, she told him that
was why his materials were taken. Id. ¶ 7.
Deputy Warden Egan refused to speak with Conquistador during
his tour of the housing unit. When Conquistador threatened to
file a lawsuit against him, Deputy Warden Egan stated that he
did not care. Id. ¶ 8.
following day, Conquistador spoke with Captain Hurdle, who
told Conquistador that having his legal materials in
segregation was a privilege, not a right. Id. ¶
9. Conquistador told Captain Hurdle that he would file a
lawsuit against him. Id. ¶ 10.
several occasions, Conquistador told Captain Syed that
Officer Rehm had harassed him by calling him “a
spic” and making a mess of Conquistador's cell
every other day. Id. ¶ 11. Conquistador assumes
that Captain Syed did not address the issue as the actions
continued. Id. ¶ 12. Conquistador also made
several complaints to Captain Syed that Officers Rehm,
Torres, and Allegne denied him his one-hour out-of-cell
recreation time and razors to shave. Id. ¶ 13.
Captain Syed did nothing. Id. ¶ 14.
several occasions, Counselors Verrastro and O'Donnell
denied Conquistador a legal call to mark documents he had
filed in state court. Id. ¶ 15. He complained
to Warden Hannah, Deputy Warden Egan, and Counselor
Supervisor Calderon about the denial of legal calls to the
court but nothing was done. Conquistador also reported the
issue to Captain Kenny but he also denied Conquistador legal
calls. Id. ¶ 16.
multiple occasions counselors Ibiserie, Verrastro and
O'Donnell refused to electronically file documents for
Conquistador. Id. ¶ 17. Although Conquistador
complained to defendants Hannah, Egan, Hurdle, Syed, Kenny,
and Calderon, nothing was done. Conquistador states that he
electronically filed documents weeks earlier but had not
received the Notice of Electronic Filing confirming receipt
of the documents. Id. ¶ 18.
multiple occasions, counselors Ibiserie, Verrastro, and
O'Donnell denied Conquistador paper, envelopes, pens,
toothbrushes, soap, deodorant, toothpaste, and shampoo.
Id. ¶ 19. He complained to defendants Hannah,
Egan, Hughes, Hurdle, Kenny, Syed, and Calderon, but nothing
was done. Conquistador has been denied the above-listed items
since February 2019. Id. ¶ 20.
several occasions, Conquistador received his copy of the
Sunday edition of the Hartford Courant without the coupons.
Id. ¶ 21. When he questioned the mailroom, he
received an evasive response from Officer Adams. Id.
¶ 22. The mailroom has not corrected the problem.
Id. ¶ 23. Conquistador complained to defendants
Hannah, Calderon, Syed, and O'Donnell, but still is not
receiving his coupons. Id. ¶ 25.
occasion, Captain Hurdle directed officers to remove
everything from Conquistador's cell. He told
Conquistador, “you like filing lawsuits, and I like
taking property.” Conquistador is currently pursuing an
action against Captain Hurdle before the Connecticut
Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities. Id.
August 12, 2019, Officer Rehm told Conquistador to pack his
property because he was going to segregation the next day.
Officer Rehm would not tell him why. Id. ¶ 26.
The following day, Officer Rehm came to Conquistador's
cell door, asked if Conquistador just threatened him, and
walked away. Id. ¶ 27. A few minutes later,
Lieutenant Lagenheim told Conquistador that Captain Syed
wanted Conquistador to go to segregation. Id. ¶
28. Conquistador was held in restrictive housing under a
false disciplinary charge issued by Officer Rehm for
threatening. His law books and legal boxes were confiscated
while in segregation. Id. ¶ 29.
identifies his claims as retaliation, deliberate
indifference, unreasonable search and seizure, and harassment
in violation of his rights under the First, Fourth, Eighth,
and Fourteenth Amendments.
and Motions for Injunctive Relief
seeks prospective injunctive relief in his complaint and in
two motions [ECF #2, #9]. In his motion for emergency relief,
Conquistador stated that he was to be released from custody
on August 30, 2019. Doc. No. 9. However, on September 3,
2019, he filed a notice of change of address stating that he
had been re-arrested and is now confined at Bridgeport
Correctional Center. Doc. No. 11.
inmate's request for prospective injunctive relief from
correctional staff relating to conditions of confinement at a
specific correctional facility becomes moot when the inmate
is transferred to a different correctional facility.
Shepherd v. Goord, 662 F.3d 603, 610 (2d Cir. 2011)
(“in this circuit, an inmate's transfer from a
prison facility generally moots claims for declaratory and
injunctive relief against officials at that facility”).
Here, the requests for injunctive relief in the complaint and
the motions relate to Conquistador's confinement at
Garner. As he is no longer confined there, all requests for
prospective injunctive relief are dismissed as moot.