Peeler v. McGill et al

Filing 8

PRISCS - INITIAL REVIEW ORDER, Jeffery E. McGill terminated. ( Dismissal as to defendant Doe due by 8/12/2011). Signed by Judge Robert N. Chatigny on 7/21/11. (Corriette, M.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
RUSSELL PEELER,

:

Plaintiff,

:

V.
JEFFREY McGILL, et al.,

PRISONER
CASE NO. 3:11-cv-327(RNC)

:
:

Defendants.

:
ORDER

On May 3, 2011, plaintiff was ordered to amend his complaint
to allege facts demonstrating how each defendant was involved in
the events at issue.

An amended complaint has been filed.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, a court must review a prisoner’s
complaint against employees of a government entity and dismiss
any portion of the complaint that fails to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted.

In reviewing a pro se complaint

under § 1915A, a court must assume the truth of the allegations
and interpret them liberally to “raise the strongest arguments
[they] suggest[].”
2007).

Abbas v. Dixon, 480 F.3d 636, 639 (2d Cir.

To survive review, a complaint must include sufficient

facts to give the defendants fair notice of the nature of the
claims and the grounds on which they are based.

Bell Atlantic

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-56 (2007).

In addition, a

complaint must contain “enough facts to state a claim to relief
that is plausible on its face.”

Id. at 570.

Plaintiff alleges that defendant Mihaliak was stationed in
the control room and was responsible for unlocking doors and

providing inmate Webb access to the plaintiff’s cell.

Defendants

Viera, Strozier, Chukwurah and Doe were working in the unit on
the day of the incident.

Plaintiff alleges that two of these

defendants should have been escorting inmate Webb as required by
prison policy.

Plaintiff alleges that Warden McGill and Captain

Salius failed to properly supervise the other defendants.
Captain Salius also allegedly failed to separate plaintiff and
inmate Webb and wrote in his report that the two inmates had a
verbal argument.
Plaintiff’s allegations are sufficient to warrant service of
the amended complaint with regard to all the named defendants
except Warden McGill.

Supervisory officials are not responsible

for violations committed by subordinates unless the supervisor
created or condoned a policy or custom that led to the violation,
failed to act on information that unconstitutional acts were
occurring, or was grossly negligent in supervising the
subordinates.
2003).

See Hernandez v. Keane, 341 F.3d 137, 144 (2d Cir.

There is no allegation that Warden McGill was involved

in this incident, was aware of prior incidents of this nature or
was grossly negligent.
Accordingly, it is hereby ordered:
(1)

All claims against defendant McGill are dismissed

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
(2)

The Pro Se Prisoner Litigation Office will verify the

current work addresses for each of the remaining defendants, mail
2

waiver of service of process request packets including the
amended complaint to each defendant in his individual capacity
within fourteen (14) days of this Order, and report to the Court
on the status of those waiver requests on the thirty-fifth (35)
day after mailing.

If any defendant fails to return the waiver

request, the Pro Se Prisoner Litigation Office will make
arrangements for in-person service by the U.S. Marshal on the
defendant in his individual capacity and the defendant will 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 will send a

courtesy copy of the complaint and this order to the Connecticut
Attorney General and the Department of Correction Office of Legal
Affairs.
(4)

The Pro Se Prisoner Litigation Office will send written

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

Plaintiff must inform the Court within twenty days from

the date of this order of the identity of defendant John Doe.
Failure to do so will result in dismissal of all claims against
defendant Doe.
So ordered this 21st day of July 2011.

/s/
Robert N. Chatigny
United States District Judge
3