United States District Court, D. Connecticut
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER
Michael P. Shea United States District Judge
23, 2019, the plaintiff, Percell Whitaker, an inmate who is
confined at the Corrigan-Radgowski Correctional Center
(“Corrigan”), brought this action pro se
under 42 U.S.C § 1983 against the CRRC Mail Room for
withholding his mail. ECF No. 1. On August 15, 2019, the
plaintiff's motion to proceed informa pauperis
was granted. ECF No. 9. However, on August 22, 2019, the
Court dismissed his complaint without prejudice to repleading
because the “CRCC mail room” is not a person
under § 1983. ECF No. 10. After another unsuccessful
attempt to file an amended complaint, on October 18, 2019,
the plaintiff filed the instant amended complaint against
“Jane” Evans, “Jane” Rainville,
“Jane” Blackman and Captain “Jane or
John” Diloreto. ECF. No. 15. The plaintiff alleges
violation of his constitutional First, Sixth, and Fourteenth
Amendments based on the alleged withholding of legal
correspondence and magazine subscriptions. He also claims
violation of Administrative Directive 10.7 and Regulations
§ 18-81-28 through 18-81-38. For the reasons set forth
below, the court will dismiss the complaint in part.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
28 U.S.C. § 1915A, 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. 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.” Bell Atlantic, 550
U.S. at 570. “A claim has facial plausibility when the
plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the [C]ourt to
draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable
for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft, 556
U.S. at 678 (citing Bell Atlantic, 550 U.S. at 556).
it is well-established that “[p]ro se
complaints ‘must be construed liberally and interpreted
to raise the strongest arguments that they
suggest.'” Sykes v. Bank of America, 723
F.3d 399, 403 (2d Cir. 2013) (quoting Triestman v. Fed.
Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474 (2d Cir. 2006));
see also Tracy v. Freshwater, 623 F.3d 90, 101-02
(2d Cir. 2010) (discussing special rules of solicitude for
pro se litigants).
plaintiff's amended complaint alleges that in June and
July 2019, he sent an inmate request to the mail room
workers, Ms. Evans, Ms. Reinville, and Captain Diloreto about
his magazine subscriptions being withheld. ECF. No. 15, p. 4.
He received a response that the magazines had been sent for
renewal and that he would receive them. Id. However,
he alleges that nothing was received. Id. at 5. His
publication was renewed, but the mail room never sent him his
August 22, 2019, defendant Blackman received the
plaintiff's legal correspondence, but the plaintiff
received it four days later. Id.
alleges that he has exhausted his administrative remedies.
Id. at 7.
plaintiff alleges Ms. Evans, Ms. Reinville, and Captain
Diloreto violated his First Amendment right to receive his
magazine subscriptions; and that Ms. Blackman violated his
First Amendment rights by interfering with his legal
Right to Receive Publications
clearly established that “inmates have a First
Amendment right to access to publications consistent with
prison security[.]” Allen v. Coughlin, 64 F.3d
77, 81 (2d Cir. 1995). The plaintiff has alleged that his
magazine subscription had been renewed but that Evans,
Reinville and Diloreto prevented him from receiving the
magazines. At this initial stage in the action, the plaintiff
has adequately ...