United States District Court, D. Connecticut
BRETT M. JOHNSON, Plaintiff,
JESSE GREEN, Defendant.
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER
Michael P. Shea United States District Judge
Brett M. Johnson incarcerated at the Carl Robinson
Correctional Institution in Enfield, Connecticut, filed this
case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The plaintiff names one
defendant, Detective Jesse Green of the Hadley, Massachusetts
Police Department. He contends that the defendant withheld
exculpatory evidence and made misleading statements about the
plaintiff's clothing and cars to obtain probable cause
for his arrest. The plaintiff seeks damages from the
defendant in his individual and official capacities.
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. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. This requirement
applies to all prisoner filings regardless whether the
prisoner pays the filing fee. Nicholson v.
Lenczewski, 356 F.Supp.2d 157, 159 (D. Conn. 2005)
(citing Carr v. Dvorin, 171 F.3d 115 (2d Cir. 1999)
(per curiam)). Here, the plaintiff is proceeding in forma
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 plausible 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. “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.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
courts must interpret a pro se complaint liberally, the
complaint will be dismissed unless it includes sufficient
factual allegations to meet the standard of facial
plausibility.” See Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d
66, 72 (2d Cir. 2009) (citations omitted).
April 27, 2017 and May 9, 2017, there were break-ins at the
Dunkin Donuts in Hadley, Massachusetts. ECF No. 1. ¶ 4.
The first resulted in property damage and the theft of $2,
835.48. The second was thwarted by an alarm and resulted IN
property damage only. Id. ¶ 5.
1, 2017, the plaintiff was arrested in Granby, Connecticut
for a series of break-ins at Dunkin Donuts shops in several
Connecticut towns. Id. ¶ 6. Between June 2,
2017 and June 13, 2017, Defendant Detective Green learned of
the plaintiff's arrest. Id. ¶ 7.
Green obtained the police report for the plaintiff's
arrest and, on June 14, 2017, drafted and filed a one-page
“Statement of Facts” as a criminal complaint
against the plaintiff in the Eastern Hampshire District Court
in Massachusetts. Id. ¶ 8. The court found
probable cause based on this statement and issued a summons
on “two felony counts of B and E, building nighttime
for felony and two counts of Vandalize Property.”
Id. ¶ 9.
plaintiff missed his court date because he was incarcerated
in Connecticut. Id. ¶ 10. Between June 14, 2017
and August 31, 2017, a warrant was issued for the
plaintiff's arrest and lodged as a detainer in
Connecticut. Id. The plaintiff completed the
necessary paperwork and, on May 7, 2019, was extradited to
Massachusetts and arraigned on the four charges and remanded
to the Hampshire County House of Corrections. Id.
to entry of nolle prosequi, the plaintiff learned that
Detective Green withheld exculpatory evidence and made
intentionally misleading statements about the plaintiff's
cars and clothing to show probable cause for his arrest.
Id. ¶ 13.
plaintiff contends that Detective Green violated his Fifth
and Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process by filing
false statements against him. He contends that, as a result
of the false charges, he faced, for a time, a possible
sentence of 46 years in prison and was required to spend 58
days in custody in Massachusetts. The plaintiff also asserts
a supplemental claim for violation of Article 10 of the
Massachusetts Declaration of Rights.
1391 of Title 28 of the United States Code governs venue for
civil actions brought in the federal district courts. A
lawsuit may be filed in a judicial district in which the
defendant resides, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1), or in which a
substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to
the claim occurred, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). The
plaintiff has named one defendant, a detective from Hadley,
Massachusetts. He does not suggest that Detective Green lives
in Connecticut. In addition, this action concerns the
preparation of a statement used in a Massachusetts state
criminal proceeding. The only reference to Connecticut is
that Detective Green obtained a police report from
Connecticut for use in preparing his statement. Thus, the
plaintiff has not alleged facts suggesting that a substantial
part of the events occurred in ...