Walker v. Rivera

Filing 4

PRISCS - INITIAL REVIEW ORDER, ( Discovery due by 3/9/2012, Dispositive Motions due by 4/9/2012), Answer updated for Rivera to 10/18/2011. Signed by Judge Mark R. Kravitz on 8/8/11. (Corriette, M.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

THOMAS WALKER,
Plaintiff,
v.
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER RIVERA,
Defendant.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

PRISONER
CASE NO. 3:11-cv-1193 (MRK)

INITIAL REVIEW ORDER
Plaintiff Thomas Walker, incarcerated and proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a
Complaint [doc. # 1] under 42 U.S.C. ' 1983 (2000) against Correctional Officer Rivera in his
individual capacity on July 28, 2011. Mr. Walker alleges that on October 14, 2009, when he
inquired as to why he was not released for recreation, Mr. Rivera began striking Mr. Walker with
several closed-fist punches, as a result of which Mr. Walker suffered injury. Mr. Walker seeks
$500,000.00 in compensatory damages, punitive damages, costs and attorney's fees, and any other
relief as law and equity may provide.
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. 28 U.S.C. ' 1915A (2000).
Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Second Circuit precedent, a pro se
complaint is adequately pled if its allegations, liberally construed, could "conceivably give rise to a
viable claim." Phillips v. Girdich, 408 F.3d 124, 130 (2d Cir. 2005). 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). 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 (2007)). Conclusory allegations are not sufficient. Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 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)).
After careful consideration, the Court concludes that Mr. Walker's allegations warrant
service of the Complaint [doc. # 1] and an opportunity for Mr. Walker to address Mr. Rivera's
response to the Complaint.
ORDERS
The Court enters the following orders:
(1)

The Pro Se Prisoner Litigation Office shall verify the current work addresses for

Mr. Rivera, who was working at Cheshire Correctional Institution on October 14, 2009. The
Office shall mail a waiver of service of process request packet, including Complaint [doc. # 1], to
Mr. Rivera in his individual capacity within fourteen (14) days of this Order and report to the Court
on the status of the waiver request on the thirty-fifth (35) day after mailing. If Mr. Rivera fails to
return the waiver request, the Pro Se Prisoner Litigation Office shall make arrangements for
in-person service by the U.S. Marshal Service on Mr. Rivera in his individual capacity and he shall
be required to pay the costs of such service in accordance with Rule 4(d) of the Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure.
2

(2)

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

[doc. # 1] and this Ruling and Order to the Connecticut Attorney General and the Department of
Correction Office of Legal Affairs.
(3)

The Pro Se Prisoner Litigation Office shall send written notice to Mr. Walker of

the status of this action, along with a copy of this Order.
(4)

Mr. Rivera shall file his response to the complaint, either an answer or motion to

dismiss, within seventy (70) days from the date of this Order. If he chooses to file an answer, he
shall admit or deny the allegations and respond to the cognizable claims. He also may include any
and all additional defenses as permitted by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
(5)

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

completed within seven months (210 days) from the date of this Order. Discovery requests need
not be filed with the Court.
(6)

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

from the date of this Order.
(7)

Pursuant to Rule 7(a) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure, 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 may be granted absent
objection.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/

Dated at New Haven, Connecticut: August 8, 2011.

3

Mark R. Kravitz
United States District Judge