Manson v. Daniels et al

Filing 4

PRISCS-INITIAL REVIEW ORDER, Answer deadline updated for Nicholle Daniels to 5/7/2012; Hallmark to 5/7/2012., ( Discovery due by 10/8/2012, Dispositive Motions due by 11/6/2012). Signed by Judge Vanessa L. Bryant on 3/5/2012. (Payton, R.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

SHERMAN MANSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
NICOLLE DANIELS, et al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:

PRISONER
CASE NO. 3:12-cv-283 (VLB)

INITIAL REVIEW AND ORDER
The plaintiff, currently incarcerated at Northern Correctional Institution in
Somers, Connecticut, has filed a complaint pro se under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000).
He seeks damages from defendants Correctional Officers Nicolle Daniels and
Hallmark.
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[].” 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,
555-56 (2007). Conclusory allegations are not sufficient. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, ___

U.S. ___, 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, on December 25, 2011, as defendant Hallmark was
passing out books, defendant Daniels caused the trap in the cell door to close on
the plaintiff’s hand. Defendant Hallmark refused to call for medical assistance.
The plaintiff received medical care later when the lieutenant toured the housing
unit. The plaintiff characterizes defendant Daniels actions as retaliation for a
lawsuit the plaintiff filed against her. In addition, the plaintiff alleges that the
defendants issued several false disciplinary charges against him after the
incident.
At this time, the court concludes that the complaint should be served and
case should proceed against the defendants in their individual capacities.

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 for each defendant with the Department of Correction Office of Legal

2

Affairs. The Pro Se Prisoner Litigation Officer shall 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 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.
(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 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.
(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.

3

(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.
/s/
Vanessa L. Bryant
United States District Judge
Dated at Hartford, Connecticut: March 5, 2012.

4