United States District Court, D. Connecticut
RULING ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
MICHAEL P. SHEA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
plaintiff, Jonathan Cruz Droz, commenced this civil rights
action pro se. On February 26, 2018, with the
assistance of counsel, the plaintiff filed a second amended
complaint against seven defendants, Rosado (Mental Health),
Lieutenant Rosado, Manning, Doe Psychiatrist, John Coleman,
Doe Medical Staff, and Doe Nurse. Following initial review of
the second amended complaint, the Court determined that only
the claim deliberate indifference to medical and mental
health needs would proceed against defendants Captain
Manning, Officer Rosado, Psychiatrist Doe a/k/a/ WM Gillian,
Dr. Coleman, Medical Staff Doe, and Nurse Doe a/k/a Nurse
Pannet. ECF No. 32.
Court was unable to effect service on defendants Rosado,
Gillian, Coleman, and Pannet. Without a name, the Court was
could not even try to effect service on defendant Doe. The
plaintiff was directed to obtain their correct names and
service addresses by consulting his medical records or
through discovery. ECF No. 34. He did not do so. Thus, on
April 9, 2019, the Court dismissed the claims against all
named defendants except Captain Manning. ECF No. 45.
Manning has filed a motion for summary judgment on the ground
that he was not personally involved in the underlying
incident. The plaintiff has neither responded to the motion
nor sought an extension of time within which to do so. For
the following reasons, the motion for summary judgment is
granted absent objection.
Standard of Review
motion for summary judgment may be granted only where there
is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the moving
party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Rule 56(a),
Fed. R. Civ. P.; see also Nick's Garage, Inc. v.
Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 875 F.3d 107, 113-14 (2d Cir.
2017). “A genuine issue of material fact exists if
‘the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could
return a verdict for the nonmoving party.'”
Nick's Garage, 875 F.3d at 113-14 (quoting
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248
(1986)). Which facts are material is determined by the
substantive law. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248.
“The same standard applies whether summary judgment is
granted on the merits or on an affirmative defense
….” Giordano v. Market Am., Inc., 599
F.3d 87, 93 (2d Cir. 2010).
moving party bears the initial burden of informing the court
of the basis for its motion and identifying the admissible
evidence it believes demonstrates the absence of a genuine
issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,
477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). Once the moving party meets this
burden, the nonmoving party must set forth specific facts
showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Wright
v. Goord, 554 F.3d 255, 266 (2d Cir. 2009). He cannot
“‘rely on conclusory allegations or
unsubstantiated speculation' but ‘must come forward
with specific evidence demonstrating the existence of a
genuine dispute of material fact.'” Robinson v.
Concentra Health Servs., 781 F.3d 42, 34 (2d Cir. 2015)
(citation omitted). To defeat a motion for summary judgment,
the nonmoving party must present such evidence as would allow
a jury to find in his favor. Graham v. Long Island
R.R., 230 F.3d 34, 38 (2d Cir. 2000).
the court is required to read a self-represented
“party's papers liberally and interpret them to
raise the strongest arguments that they suggest, ”
Willey v. Kirkpatrick, 801 F.3d 51, 62 (2d Cir.
2015), “unsupported allegations do not create a
material issue of fact” and do not overcome a properly
supported motion for summary judgment. Weinstock v.
Columbia Univ., 224 F.3d 33, 41 (2d Cir. 2000).
April 2017, the plaintiff was confined at MacDougall-Walker
Correctional Institution (“MacDougall”). ECF No.
48-2 ¶ 1. On April 24, 2017, the plaintiff's
cellmate had a psychotic episode resulting in the use of a
chemical agent. Id. ¶ 2.
Manning is employed by the Department of Correction as a
Correctional Captain. Id. ¶ 4. He has worked
for the Department of Correction since August 2000.
Id. ¶ 5. In April and May 2017, defendant
Manning was assigned to Osborn Correctional Institution.
Id. ¶ 6. He did not work at MacDougall during
that time and, in fact, has never worked there. Id.
¶¶ 6-7. Defendant Manning does not know, and does
not believe that he has ever met, the plaintiff. Id.
Manning moves for summary judgment the ground that he was not
involved in the incident underlying the complaint.
prerequisite to an award of damages under section 1983 is the
defendant's personal involvement in the alleged
constitutional deprivation. Williams v. Smith, 781
F.2d 319, 323 (2d Cir. 1986) (citing McKinnon v.
Patterson, 568 F.2d 930, 934 (2d Cir. 1977)). The
plaintiff seeks only damages from defendant Manning. Thus, he
must show that defendant Manning was ...