Gray v. Commissioner Of Correction

Filing 5

PRISCS - INITIAL REVIEW ORDER, Answer updated for Commissioner of Correction to 9/20/2011., ( Discovery due by 3/25/2012, Dispositive Motions due by 5/15/2012). Signed by Judge Janet Bond Arterton on 7/11/11. (Corriette, M.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
BENNIE GRAY, JR.
Plaintiff,
PRISONER
CASE NO. 3:10-cv-1998(JBA)

v.

CONNECTICUT COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION,
Defendant.
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER
The plaintiff, Bennie Gray, Jr., is currently incarcerated
at Corrigan-Radgowski Correctional Institution in Uncasville,
Connecticut.

He filed a complaint pro se under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

against the Commissioner of the Connecticut Department of
Correction.1
Pursuant 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).

Although 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.

1

A claim has facial

The plaintiff mailed the complaint to the court on December
17, 2010 and it was received on December 20, 2010.

plausibility when the 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, ___ U.S. ___, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (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 liberally construe a pro se complaint, see
Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir.2009), the complaint
must include sufficient factual allegations to meet the standard
of facial plausibility.
Plaintiff alleges that in July 2007, he filed a habeas
petition in this court challenging his conviction for
manslaughter.

On December 21, 2007, Judge Underhill granted the

respondent’s motion to dismiss and dismissed the petition as
barred by the one year statute of limitations set forth in 28
U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1).
The plaintiff alleges that the Department of Correction is
responsible for providing inmates with access to courts to
challenge their convictions.

He claims that the Commissioner of

the Department of Correction failed to provide him with access to

2

legal assistance or legal resources in order to enable him to
learn about the statute of limitations period applicable to
federal habeas petitions.

The plaintiff claims that the Inmates’

Legal Assistance Program is forbidden to assist inmates with
challenges to their convictions, the legal resources in
Connecticut prisons are out of date and the Connecticut Public
Defenders’ Office refuses to assist inmates “out of fear of being
held liable.”
After reviewing the allegations, the court concludes that
the case should proceed at this time as to the claim of denial of
access to the courts against the defendant in his official
capacity.
ORDERS
The court enters the following orders:
(1)

The denial of access to courts claim against the

Commissioner of Correction in his official capacity shall
proceed.
(2) By July 25, 2011, the U.S. Marshals Service shall serve
the summons, a copy of the Complaint [doc. #1] and this Order on
the defendant in his official capacity by delivering the
necessary documents in person to the Office of the Attorney
General, 55 Elm Street, Hartford, CT 06141.
(3)

The Pro Se Prisoner Litigation Office shall send a

courtesy copy of the complaint and this Order to the Connecticut

3

Attorney General and the Department of Correction Legal Affairs
Unit.
(4)

The Pro Se Prisoner Litigation Office shall send

written notice to the plaintiff of the status of this action,
along with a copy of this Order.
(5)

The defendant shall file his response to the complaint,

either an answer or motion to dismiss by September 25, 2011.

If

the defendant chooses to file an answer, he shall admit or deny
the allegations and respond to the cognizable claims recited
above.

He may also include any and all additional defenses

permitted by the Federal Rules.
(6)

Discovery, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

26 through 37, shall be completed by March 25, 2012.

Discovery

requests need not be filed with the court.
(7)

All motions for summary judgment shall be filed by

April 21, 2012.
(8)

Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7(a), a non-moving party

must respond to a dispositive motion within twenty-one (21) days
of the date the motion was filed, or by May 15, 2012.

If no

response is filed, or the response is not timely, the dispositive
motion can be granted absent objection.
IT IS SO ORDERED at New Haven, Connecticut this 11th day of
July, 2011.
/s/___________________________
Janet Bond Arterton, U.S.D.J.
4