United States District Court, D. Connecticut
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER
A. DOOLEY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
October 22, 2019, the pro se plaintiff, Israel Santiago,
currently incarcerated at Garner Correctional Institution,
filed this civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 against the Hamden Police Department, Sergeant
Doherty, and Officer Venditto. Compl. [ECF No. 1]. He seeks
damages and injunctive relief due to violations of his
constitutional rights arising out of his arrest on September
7, 2015. For the following reasons, the complaint is
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 still have an obligation to interpret
“a pro se complaint liberally, ” the complaint
must include sufficient factual allegations to meet the
standard of facial plausibility. See Harris v.
Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir. 2009) (citations
September 7, 2015, the plaintiff led the Hamden police
officers on a chase. Compl. at 2 ¶ 1 [ECF No. 1]. The
plaintiff accelerated his vehicle in an attempt to get away
from the police because he feared that he would be shot and
lose his life. Id. at ¶ 2. Sergeant Doherty
struck the plaintiff's vehicle. Id. at ¶ 3.
After the plaintiff's vehicle spun out and became
inoperable, Sergeant Doherty fired his weapon. Id.
at ¶ 4. The plaintiff set out on foot fearing for his
life due to the multiple gun shots. Id. at ¶ 5.
The plaintiff had no weapons and did not pose a threat.
Id. In an attempt “to get away in any manner
possible[, ]” the plaintiff jumped into a river.
Id. at ¶ 6. Thereafter, the plaintiff was
tased, and he put his hands up in an attempt to surrender.
Id. He pulled out the taser prongs and yelled,
“I give up! Please! Don't hurt me!”
Venditto slammed him to the ground face first and applied the
hand restraints tight in an unlawful manner. Id. at
plaintiff did not pose a threat to the police officers so as
to warrant the use of deadly force. Id. at ¶ 8.
trial, the defendant police officers lied and made false
allegations on the stand. Id. at ¶ 11. The
charges against the plaintiff were later thrown out.
Police Officers have a common unlawful practice of firing
their firearms or using deadly force on humans and their
non-moving vehicles. Id. at 12.
plaintiff alleges that the defendant police officers used
excessive force against him in violation of his
Constitutional rights. He alleges violations of the Eighth
and Fourteenth Amendments but claims of excessive force by
police officers ...