Bailey v. Corbett et al

Filing 20

PRISCS-INITIAL REVIEW ORDER re 12 Amended Complaint filed by Mark Bailey, ( Discovery due by 12/10/2012, Dispositive Motions due by 1/10/2013), Answer updated for Esther Torres to 7/19/2012; DeShawn Billings to 7/19/2012., John Connelly terminated.. Signed by Judge Janet C. Hall on 5/9/2012. (Payton, R.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

MARK BAILEY,
Plaintiff,
v.
CHRISTOPHER CORBETT, et al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:

PRISONER CASE
NO. 3:11-cv-1553 (JCH)

May 9, 2012

INITIAL REVIEW ORDER
OF AMENDED COMPLAINT (Doc. No. 12)
On November 2, 2011, the court entered an Initial Review Order dismissing the
claims in the original complaint against defendants John A. Connelly, DeShawn Billings,
Doe #1 and Doe #4. On January 10, 2012, the plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint,
naming five defendants, Christopher Corbett, Michael Puffer, John Connelly, DeShawn
Billings, and Esther Torres and withdrawing his claims against all remaining John Doe
defendants.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (2000), the court must review prisoner civil complaints
and dismiss any portion of a 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. Accordingly, the court reviews the Amended
Complaint.
In conducting this review, 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 Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-56 (2007). Conclusory allegations are
not sufficient. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (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)).
Although the court previously dismissed all claims against defendants Connelly
and Billings, the plaintiff has included them in the Amended Complaint. The court
dismissed the claims against defendant Connelly because the plaintiff alleged no facts
supporting a libel claim against defendant Connelly under state law. See Initial Review
Order (Doc. No. 5) at 6. The plaintiff alleges no new facts against defendant Connelly.
Accordingly, all claims against defendant Connelly are dismissed for the reasons stated
in the November 2, 2011 Initial Review Order.
The plaintiff attempts to clarify his claims against defendant Billings by adding
allegations of conduct in violation of state and federal law. At this time, the court will
allow the claims against defendant Billings to proceed.
The plaintiff also has included Esther Torres as a defendant. He alleges that she
made a late referral to probation, resulting in the plaintiff’s placement at the St. Vincent
DePaul homeless shelter where the dormitory conditions aggravated his mental illness
and exposed him to bedbugs. The plaintiff also alleges that defendant Torres denied
him gate money, denied him proper identification after he changed his name, and
2

repeatedly undermined the prison grievance procedure. He implies that she took these
actions because he had named her in a prior lawsuit. Thus, to the extent that the
Amended Complaint may be construed to state claims against defendant Torres under
state and federal law, the case will proceed against her at this time.
ORDERS
In accordance with the foregoing analysis, the court enters the following orders:
(1)

All claims against defendant John Connelly are DISMISSED pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
(2)

The Pro Se Prisoner Litigation Office shall verify the current work

addresses for defendants Billings and Torres and mail waiver of service of process
request packets to these defendants 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 either defendant fails to return the
waiver request, the Pro Se Prisoner Litigation Office shall make arrangements for inperson 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).
(4)

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

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

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.

3

(6)

Defendants Billings and Torres shall file their response to the Amended

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 included in the Amended Complaint.
They also may include any and all additional defenses permitted by the Federal Rules.
(7)

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.
(8)

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

days) from the date of this Order.
(9)

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.
SO ORDERED this 9th day of May 2012, at Bridgeport, Connecticut.

/s/ Janet C. Hall
Janet C. Hall
United States District Judge

4