Santiago v. Appleton

Filing 9

Entered In Error - Initial Review ORDER. Signed by Judge Warren W. Eginton on 5/9/12. (Ladd-Smith, I.) Modified on 5/9/2012 (Candee, D.).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

RANDALL SAUNDERS,
Plaintiff,

:
:
:
:
:
:
:

v.
BLAIR VINTON, et al.,
Defendants.

PRISONER
CASE NO. 3:12-cv-581 (WWE)

INITIAL REVIEW ORDER
The plaintiff, currently incarcerated at the Enfield
Correctional Institution in Enfield, Connecticut, has filed a
complaint pro se under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000).

The plaintiff

names as defendants Blair Vinton, Neva Lloyd, Hector Rodriguez
and three John Does.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (2000), 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[].”
F.3d 636, 639 (2d Cir. 2007).

Abbas v. Dixon, 480

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, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (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.

But “‘[a] document

filed pro se is to be liberally construed and a pro se complaint,
however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent
standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’”

Boykin v.

KeyCorp, 521 F.3d 202, 214 (2d Cir. 2008) (quoting Erickson v.
Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007)).
The plaintiff alleges that after he was allowed to proceed
pro se in a state habeas appeal, the defendants conspired to
withhold the only copy of the court file.

When the documents

were finally delivered to the plaintiff, he noticed that the box,
clearly marked as legal mail, had been opened, the documents had
been searched and evidence was missing.

The plaintiff was

ordered to relinquish his legal files and work product.

When he

requested access to the files, he was told that no one had a key.
Before he was transferred to Enfield Correctional
Institution, the plaintiff had been told to send his legal files
home.

If he needed any of the files, his contact could mail the

documents identified as legal correspondence and the documents
would be treated as priority mail and opened only in his
presence.

Although the plaintiff followed these instructions,
2

the defendants repeatedly opened the plaintiff’s legal
correspondence outside his presence and delayed delivery of the
documents.
The court concludes, at this time, that the complaint should
be served on defendants Vinton, Lloyd and Rivera.
ORDERS
In accordance with the foregoing analysis, the court enters
the following orders:
(1)

The Pro Se Prisoner Litigation Office shall verify the

current work addresses of each defendant, Vinton, Lloyd and
Rivera, with the Department of Correction Office of Legal Affairs
and mail waiver of service of process request packets to each
defendant at the confirmed addresses within fourteen (14) days of
this Order.

The Pro Se Prisoner Litigation Office shall 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
shall make arrangements for in-person service by the U.S.
Marshals Service on the defendant in his or her individual
capacity and the defendant shall be required to pay the costs of
such service in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
4(d).
(2)

The Pro Se Prisoner Litigation Office shall prepare a

summons form and send an official capacity service packet to the
3

U.S. Marshal Service.

The U.S. Marshal is directed to effect

service of the complaint with all exhibits on defendants Vinton,
Lloyd and Rivera in their official capacities at the Office of
the Attorney General, 55 Elm Street, Hartford, CT

06141, within

fourteen (14) days from the date of this order and to file
returns of service within twenty (20) days from the date of this
order.
(3)

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.
(4)

The Pro Se Prisoner Litigation Office shall send a

courtesy copy of the Complaint and this Ruling and Order to the
Connecticut Attorney General and the Department of Correction
Office of Legal Affairs.
(5)

The defendants shall file their response to the

complaint, either an answer or motion to dismiss, within seventy
(70) days from the date of this order.

If they choose to file an

answer, they shall admit or deny the allegations and respond to
the cognizable claims recited above.

They also may 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 within seven months (210 days)
from the date of this order.

Discovery requests need not be

filed with the court.
4

(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 nonmoving 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.
(9)

The court cannot effect service on the John Doe

defendants without their full names and current work addresses.
The plaintiff is directed to file an amended complaint containing
this information.

The plaintiff shall file the amended complaint

within twenty (20) days from the date of this order.

Failure to

comply with this order may result in the dismissal of all claims
against defendants Doe without further notice from the court.
SO ORDERED this 9th day of May 2012, at Bridgeport,
Connecticut.
/s/
Warren W. Eginton
Senior United States District Judge

5