Person v. Corrections et al

Filing 23

PRISCS - INITIAL REVIEW ORDER, ( Discovery due by 5/21/2012, Dispositive Motions due by 6/20/2012), Answer updated for Ikem(Correctional Officer, Individual and Official Capacity) to 12/30/2011; Requinville(Correctional Officer, Individual and Official Capacity) to 12/30/2011. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 10/19/11. (Corriette, M.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

AARON PERSON,
Plaintiff,
PRISONER
CASE NO. 3:11-cv-298(SRU)

v.
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,
Defendants.

INITIAL REVIEW ORDER
Aaron Person, currently incarcerated at Willard-Cybulski Correctional Institution in
Enfield, Connecticut, has filed an amended complaint pro se under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Person
sues Correctional Officers Ikem and Reqinville.
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. A claim has facial 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.
Person alleges that in March 2010 he was incarcerated at Carl Robinson Correctional
Institution. On March 29, 2010, another inmate kicked him in the head and beat his face with a
padlock. Officers Ikem and Requinville were stationed in the housing unit, but did not respond
to stop the assault for at least five minutes. Prison officials transported the plaintiff to University
of Connecticut Health Center for treatment of his injuries. The plaintiff still suffers from
headaches, neck pain, depression and anxiety.
The plaintiff seeks three million dollars in damages. To the extent that the plaintiff sues
the defendants in their official capacities, the claims for money damages are barred by the
Eleventh Amendment. See Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159 (1985) (Eleventh Amendment,
which protects the state from suits for monetary relief, also protects state officials sued for
damages in their official capacities); Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 342 (1979) (Section 1983
does not override a state’s Eleventh Amendment immunity). The claims for money damages
against the defendants in their official capacities are dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915A(b)(2).
After reviewing the remaining allegations in the amended complaint, the court concludes
that the case should proceed at this time on the Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claims
against defendants Ikem and Requinville in their individual capacities.
2

ORDERS
The court enters the following orders:
(1)

All claims against the defendants for monetary damages in their official capacities

are DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(2). The failure-to-protect claims shall
proceed against the defendants in their individual capacities.
(2)

Within fourteen (14) days of this Order, the Pro Se Prisoner Litigation Office

shall ascertain from the Department of Correction Office of Legal Affairs the current work
addresses for defendants Ikem and Requinville and mail waiver of service of process request
packets to each defendant in his or her individual capacity at his or her current work address. On
the thirty-fifth (35th) day after mailing, the Pro Se Office shall report to the court on the status of
all waiver requests. If any defendant fails to return the waiver request, the Clerk shall make
arrangements for in-person service by the U.S. Marshals Service and the defendant shall be
required to pay the costs of such service in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(d).
(3)

The Pro Se Prisoner Litigation Office shall send a courtesy copy of the

amended complaint and this Order to the Connecticut 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)

Defendants shall file their response to the amended complaint, either an answer

or motion to dismiss, within seventy (70) days from the date of this order. If the defendants
choose to file an answer, they shall admit or deny the allegations and respond to the cognizable
claims recited above. They may also include any and all additional defenses permitted by the
3

Federal Rules.
(6)

Discovery, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 through 37, shall be

completed within seven months (210 days) from the date of this order. Discovery requests need
not be filed with the court.
(7)

All motions for summary judgment shall be filed within eight months (240 days)

from the date of this order.
(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. If no response
is filed, or the response is not timely, the dispositive motion can be granted absent objection.
SO ORDERED this 19th day of October 2011, at Bridgeport, Connecticut.

/s/ Stefan R. Underhill
Stefan R. Underhill
United States District Judge

4