Laboy v. Bruno et al

Filing 4

PRISCS-INITIAL REVIEW ORDER, Answer deadline updated for Leo C. Arnone to 3/15/2013; Anthony J. Bruno to 3/15/2013., ( Discovery due by 7/2/2013, Dispositive Motions due by 8/2/2013). Signed by Judge Janet Bond Arterton on 1/3/2013. (Payton, R.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

JOHN LABOY,
Plaintiff,

:
:
:
v.
:
:
REVEREND ANTHONY J. BRUNO, et al., :
Defendants.
:

PRISONER
Case No. 3:12-cv-1797 (JBA)

INITIAL REVIEW ORDER
The plaintiff, John Laboy, currently incarcerated at the
Carl Robinson Correctional Institution in Enfield, Connecticut,
has filed a complaint pro se under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000).

He

names as defendants Reverend Anthony J. Bruno and Commissioner
Leo C. Arnone.

Both defendants are named in their individual and

official capacities.
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[].”
636, 639 (2d Cir. 2007).

Abbas v. Dixon, 480 F.3d

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.
Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-56 (2007).
allegations are not sufficient.
678 (2009).

Conclusory

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,

The plaintiff must plead “enough facts to state a

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

Bell

Twombly, 550

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 practices the Santeria religion.

He alleges

that the defendants have refused to permit him to purchase
colored Santeria beads, thereby interfering with his ability to
practice his religion.
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 address for each defendant with the Department of
Correction Office of Legal Affairs, and mail waiver of service of
process request packets to each defendant at his or her confirmed
address by January 17, 2013.

The Pro Se Prisoner Litigation

Office shall report to the court on the status of that waiver
2

request 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 that 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 prepare a

summons form and send an official capacity service packet to the
U.S. Marshal Service.

The U.S. Marshal is directed to effect

service of the complaint on all defendants in their official
capacities at the Office of the Attorney General, 55 Elm Street,
Hartford, CT 06141, by January 17, 2013 and to file returns of
service by January 24, 2013.
(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 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
Legal Affairs Unit.
(5)

The defendants shall file their response to the

complaint, either an answer or motion to dismiss, by March 15,
2013.

If they choose to file an answer, they shall admit or deny
3

the allegations and respond to the cognizable claims recited
above.

They also may 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 by July 2, 2013.

Discovery

requests need not be filed with the court.
(7)

All motions for summary judgment shall be filed by

August 2, 2013.
(8)

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 3rd day of January 2013, at New Haven,
Connecticut.

/s/
Janet Bond Arterton
United States District Judge

4