Schryer v. Martin et al

Filing 4

PRISCS-INITIAL REVIEW ORDER, Monty and James Shabenas terminated., ( Discovery due by 6/18/2012, Dispositive Motions due by 7/18/2012), Answer deadline updated for Robert Martin to 1/30/2012.. Signed by Judge Vanessa L. Bryant on 11/17/2011. (Payton, R.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

REBECCA SCHRYER,
Plaintiff

:
:
:
v.
:
:
CAPTAIN ROBERT MARTIN, ET AL., :
Defendants
:

PRISONER
CASE NO. 3:11-cv-1250(VLB)
November 17, 2011

INITIAL REVIEW ORDER
The plaintiff, Rebecca Schryer, incarcerated and pro se, has filed a
complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. She names Captain Robert Martin, Lieutenant
James Shabenas and Correctional Officer Monty as defendants.
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, 556 U.S. 662, 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.
The plaintiff alleges that in August 2008, she was incarcerated at York
Correctional Institution in Niantic, Connecticut (“York”). On August 6, 2008,
numerous correctional officers assaulted her. Immediately after the assault, the
plaintiff requested that unit staff and Captain Martin provide her with medical
attention. Several hours later, a nurse came and gave the plaintiff a cursory exam
and left her handcuffed behind her back in a pool of blood. At some point,
Captain Martin and other officers rinsed the plaintiff off in the shower and
escorted her to another cell. The plaintiff received no further medical attention
that day.
In the days following the assault, the plaintiff experienced heavy bleeding.
She informed Captain Martin, but he failed to take any action or arrange for the
plaintiff to be treated by medical staff. In the next several months, the plaintiff

2

experience severe fatigue, episodes of vertigo, lack of appetite and
disorientation. The plaintiff requested medical attention, but none was provided
to her. One night in November, officers escorted the plaintiff to the medical
department and the following day, medical staff rushed the plaintiff to the
University of Connecticut Medical Center for an emergency blood transfusion.
The plaintiff seeks money damages.
To the extent that 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 capacity); Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 342 (1979)
(Section 1983 does not override a state’s Eleventh Amendment immunity). The
claims against all defendants in their official capacities are dismissed pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(2).
The plaintiff indicates that Lieutenant James Shabenas is employed at York
and Correctional Officer Monty is employed by the Department of Correction. The
plaintiff does not otherwise mention these defendants in the body of the
complaint. As such, the plaintiff has not alleged that they violated her federally or
constitutionally protected rights. The claims against defendants Shabenas and
Monty are dismissed without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1).
After reviewing the complaint, the court concludes that the case should

3

proceed at this time as to the claims against Captain Robert Martin in his
individual capacity.

Orders
In accordance with the foregoing analysis, the court enters the following
orders:
(1)

The claims against all defendants for monetary damages in their

official capacities are DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(2) and the
claims against defendants Shabenas and Monty in their individual capacities are
DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) . The claims
against defendant Martin in his individual capacity shall proceed.
The court will permit the plaintiff 30 days from the date of this order to file
an amended complaint as to defendants Shebenas and Monty provided that she
can allege the involvement of one or more of these defendants in the alleged use
of excessive force and/or deliberate indifference to safety or serious medical
needs. The Clerk shall send the plaintiff an amended complaint form with a copy
of this order.1
(2)

Within fourteen (14) business days of this Order, the

Pro Se Prisoner Litigation Office shall ascertain from the Department of

1

The plaintiff is reminded that an amended complaint completely replaces the
original complaint. Thus, if the plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, it shall
include all of the claims and requests for relief she seeks to have the court consider and
shall name all of the defendants against whom she seeks relief.

4

Correction Office of Legal Affairs the current work address for defendant Robert
Martin 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 defendant Martin fails to return the waiver
request, the Clerk shall make arrangements for in-person service by the U.S.
Marshals Service and defendant Matin 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 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)

Defendant Martin 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 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 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

5

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 may be granted absent objection for good cause shown.
SO ORDERED at Hartford, Connecticut this 17th day of November, 2011.

/s/
Vanessa L. Bryant
United States District Judge

6