Arzuaga v. Cieboter et al
PRISCS-INITIAL REVIEW ORDER, ( Discovery due by 1/2/2013, Dispositive Motions due by 2/1/2013), Answer updated for Cieboter to 8/15/2012; Mike Jones to 8/15/2012; Rutkowski to 8/15/2012.. Signed by Judge Dominic J. Squatrito on 6/6/2012. (Payton, R.)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
CIEBOTER, et al.,
CASE NO. 3:12-cv-743(DJS)
INITIAL REVIEW 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).
names as defendants Correctional Officers Cieboter, Rutkowski and
All defendants are named in their individual
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.
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.”
F.3d 636, 639 (2d Cir. 2007).
Abbas v. Dixon, 480
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 Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007).
Conclusory allegations are not sufficient.
556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009).
Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
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
The plaintiff states that he was on in-cell restraint status
on December 7, 2011.
When defendant Rutkowski served him an
incomplete bag meal and neither Rutkowski nor defendant Jones
would rectify the matter, he stuck his cuffed hands through the
food slot as a protest and to attract the attention of a
Defendants Rutkowski and Cieboter used excessive
force against the plaintiff by repeatedly slamming the food slot
door shut on his arms and wrists.
Defendant Jones watched but
did not intercede to stop the use of force.
The court concludes, at this time, that the complaint should
be served on defendants in their individual capacities.
In accordance with the foregoing analysis, the court enters
the following orders:
The Pro Se Prisoner Litigation Office shall verify the
current work addresses of each defendant with the Department of
Correction Office of Legal Affairs and mail waiver of service of
process request packets to each defendant at the confirmed
addresses on or before June 20, 2012.
The Pro Se Prisoner
Litigation Office shall report to the court on the status of
those waiver requests on July 25, 2012. 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
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.
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.
The defendants shall file their response to the
complaint, either an answer or motion to dismiss, on or before
August 15, 2012. 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.
Discovery, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
26 through 37, shall be completed by January 2, 2013. Discovery
requests need not be filed with the court.
All motions for summary judgment shall be filed on or
before February 1, 2013.
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
SO ORDERED this 6th
day of June 2012, at Hartford,
Dominic J. Squatrito
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?