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
deliberate indifference, retaliation, use of excessive force,
and unlawful seizure of property in violation of his rights
under the First, Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments
against six defendants who work at Garner Correctional
Institution (“Garner”): Captain Fahd Syed, and
Officers Bakewell, Blekis, Kennedy, Colombo, and Allegne.
Conquistador seeks damages against the defendants in their
individual and official capacities.
December 4, 2019, the court ordered Conquistador to show why
his complaint should not be dismissed for failure to exhaust
administrative remedies before commencing this action. Doc.
No. 8. Conquistador has responded to that order explaining
that he is on grievance restriction and the grievance
procedures are unavailable to him. Doc. No. 9. The court now
reviews the merits of Conquistador's claims.
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 26, 2019, Disciplinary Investigator Snowden told
Conquistador that he would be returning to the IPM2 Unit and
continuing in the Chronic Discipline Program because he could
not be held for more than two weeks pending the investigation
of the Disciplinary Report issued by Correctional Guard Rehm
for alleged threats. Doc. No. 1, IV. ¶ 1. He was
escorted to IPM2, cell 606 at 11:40 a.m. Id. ¶
complained that the cell had feces on the walls, floor, and
toilet, smelled of urine, that the toilet did not work, and
that there was no table or chair for him to sit and do
paperwork. Id. ¶ 3. He was ignored for several
hours. Id. ¶ 4.
hours later, Officer Falcone and defendant Alleyne delivered
Conquistador's bedroll and banker's box of legal
files. Id. ¶ 5. He was handcuffed and directed
to step out of the cell so his belongings could be placed in
the cell. Id. ¶ 6. Conquistador objected to
having his belongings placed in the cell and refused to
re-enter the cell. Id. ¶ 7. He lay face-down on
the floor and refused to walk back into the cell.
Id. ¶ 8.
moments later, defendants Syed, Bakewell, Blekis, Kennedy and
other officers arrived at the cell. Id. ¶ 9.
Defendant Syed asked Conquistador, who was still on the
floor, what the problem was. Id. ¶ 10.
Conquistador described his objections to the cell condition.
Id. Defendant Syed disregarded his concerns and
ordered Conquistador to “get up and walk.”
Id. ¶ 11. When Conquistador objected, defendant
Syed said that was his cell. Id. ¶¶ 12-13.
continued to refuse to get up and enter the cell.
Id. ¶ 14. He was picked up and carried into the
cell. Id. ¶ 15. He was not being physically
hostile or trying to attack any officer and did not make any
sudden movements. Id. Inside the cell, defendant
Alleyne twisted his left foot causing pain. Id.
¶ 16. Defendants Blekis and Kennedy twisted his wrists.
Id. Defendant Bakewell sprayed him in the face with
a chemical agent after defendant Syed ordered that the
handheld camera not be turned on and that Conquistador's
head be held up. Id. ¶ 16, 18. Defendant
Kennedy grabbed Conquistador's neck to hold up his head.
Id. ¶ 17. About a week prior to this incident,
defendants Syed and Alleyne received copies of a complaint
Conquistador had filed against them. Id. ¶ 20.
August 30, 2019, defendants Bekis and Columbo transported
Conquistador to Bridgeport Correctional Center
(“Bridgeport”) after Conquistador was arraigned
for threats against Officer Rehm, a defendant in another
lawsuit filed by Conquistador. Id. ¶ 21. When
Conquistador asked them to get his property from the van,
defendant Blekis said he was not getting anything.
Id. ¶ 22. They brought his property back to
Garner Correctional Institution. Id. ¶ 23.
Conquistador's television and white leather Reeboks are
missing. Id. ¶¶ 24-25.
identifies his claims as deliberate indifference,
retaliation, excessive force, and unlawful seizure of his
property in violation of his rights under the First, Fourth,
Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. He seeks damages from the
defendants in their individual and official capacities.
states that he was confined as a sentenced prisoner and, now,
is incarcerated at Bridgeport as a pretrial detainee.
Id. at 2. He was arraigned on August 30, 2019.
Id. ¶ 21. Thus, Conquistador was a pretrial
detainee at the time of his property claim and a sentenced
prisoner at ...