Goins v. McGill et al

Filing 4

PRISCS - INITIAL REVIEW ORDER, ( Discovery due by 6/21/2012, Dispositive Motions due by 7/20/2012), Answer updated for Brown to 1/31/2012; David Butkiewicus to 1/31/2012; Daire to 1/31/2012; Donovan to 1/31/2012; Michael Lajoie to 1/31/2012; Dennis M arinelli to 1/31/2012; McCormick to 1/31/2012; Jeffrey McGill to 1/31/2012; Angel Quiros to 1/31/2012; Neftalie Rodriguez to 1/31/2012; Sokolowski to 1/31/2012; Stewart to 1/31/2012; Patrick Ward to 1/31/2012. Signed by Judge Alvin W. Thompson on 11/10/11. (Corriette, M.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

STEPHEN L. GOINS,
Plaintiff,
v.
JEFFREY McGILL, et al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:

PRISONER
CASE NO. 3:11-cv-1491 (AWT)

INITIAL REVIEW ORDER
Plaintiff Stephen L. Goins, incarcerated and pro se, has
filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000).

The named

defendants are Jeffrey McGill; Neftalie Rodriguez; Angel Quiros;
David Butkiewicus; Dennis Marinelli; Lieutenant McCormick;
Correctional Officers Donovan, Sokolowski, Daire, Stewart and
Brown; Patrick Ward and Michael Lajoie.

All defendants are named

in their individual capacities only.
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.

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, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007)).
allegations are not sufficient.
1937, 1949 (2009).

Conclusory

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct.

The plaintiff must plead “enough facts to

state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
550 U.S. at 570.

Twombly,

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, 127 S. Ct. 2197,
2200 (2007)).
The plaintiff alleges that the incidents underlying this
action occurred while he was confined at Northern Correctional
Institution.

The plaintiff alleges that, on June 15, 2009,

defendants Daire, Donovan, Brown, McCormick and Marinelli used
excessive force against him while defendants Brown, Sokolowski,
Stewart and Butkiewicus stood by and failed to intervene.

He

also alleges that defendants McGill and Rodriguez ordered that he
recreate in handcuffs and shackles for one week, further injuring
2

his right hand, and that the defendants conspired to falsify
their reports of the incident.
After review of the complaint, the court concludes that the
allegations warrant service of the complaint and an opportunity
for the plaintiff to address the defendants’ response to the his
Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment claims.
Orders
The court enters the following orders:
(1)

The Pro Se Prisoner Litigation Office shall verify the

current work address for each defendant, mail waiver of service
of process request packets to each defendant in his or her
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
shall make arrangements for in-person service by the U.S. Marshal
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 send a

courtesy copy of the Complaint and this 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 the plaintiff of the status of this action,
3

along with a copy of this Order.
(4)

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.

They also may include any and all

additional defenses permitted by the Federal Rules.
(5)

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.
(6)

All motions for summary judgment shall be filed within

eight months (240 days) from the date of this Order.
(7)

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.
It is so ordered.
Dated this 10th day of November 2011, at Hartford,
Connecticut.
/s/AWT
Alvin W. Thompson
United States District Judge

4