Shabazz v. Dzurenda et al

Filing 7

INITIAL REVIEW ORDER; ORDER re 4 MOTION For Service filed by Shaka Shabazz Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 10/22/2014.(Freuden, S.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

SHAKA SHABAZZ,
Plaintiff,
v.

CASE NO. 3:14-cv-818(SRU)

COMMISSIONER JAMES DZURENDA, ET AL.,
Defendants.
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER
The plaintiff, Shaka Shabazz, currently incarcerated at Osborn Correctional Institution,
filed this civil rights action pro se. The named defendants are Commissioner Dzurenda, Warden
Peter Murphy, Counselor Rachel Boland, Correctional Treatment Officer Mortimer and
Correctional Officer Peters.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), the Court must review prisoner civil complaints
against governmental actors and “dismiss ... any portion of [a] complaint [that] is frivolous,
malicious, or 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. This requirement applies both
where the inmate has paid the filing fee and where he is proceeding in forma pauperis. See Carr
v. Dvorin, 171 F.3d 115 (2d Cir. 1999) (per curiam). Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure requires that a complaint contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing
that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).
Although detailed allegations are not required, “a complaint must contain sufficient
factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. A claim has
facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). A complaint that
includes only “‘labels and conclusions,’ ‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of
action’ or ‘naked assertion[s]’ devoid of ‘further factual enhancement,’ ” does not meet the
facial plausibility standard. Id. (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 557
(2007)). Although courts still have an obligation to liberally construe a pro se complaint, see
Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir. 2009), the complaint must include sufficient factual
allegations to meet the standard of facial plausibility.
The plaintiff alleges that on June 11, 2013, he received a disciplinary report. A
lieutenant informed the plaintiff that he would be placed temporarily in restrictive housing. A
correctional officer took possession of all of the plaintiff’s personal property and delivered it to
Correctional Treatment Officer Mortimer. Before the plaintiff was released from restrictive
housing, CTO Mortimer came to the plaintiff’s cell with an inventory of his personal property.
When the plaintiff noted that some items were not listed on the inventory, CTO Mortimer added
those items the inventory form.
Upon the plaintiff’s release from restrictive housing, he noticed that a number of personal
hygiene items, food items and stationary items were missing from his personal property. The
plaintiff suspected that correctional staff had stolen the items. The plaintiff filed a grievance.
Counselor Boland denied the grievance. Warden Murphy upheld the denial of the grievance.
The plaintiff claims that CTO Mortimer failed to list all of his property on the inventory.
The plaintiff claims that without the accurate inventory, he has no proof that he owned certain
food and hygiene items. The plaintiff does not allege that he was precluded from getting copies
of the commissary receipts for the food, hygiene and stationary items that he had purchased and
were in his cell on the day that he was moved to restrictive housing in order to prove his claim of

lost property.
The plaintiff seeks money damages for the loss of his property. For the reasons set forth
below, the Complaint is dismissed.
The plaintiff does not mention Correctional Officer Peters other than in the caption and
description of the parties. As such, the plaintiff has not alleged that Correctional Officer Peters
violated his federally or constitutionally protected rights. The claims against defendant Peters
are dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. §
1915A(b)(1).
The plaintiff asserts a Fourteenth Amendment claim against defendants Dzurenda,
Murphy, Boland and Mortimer for the loss of personal property items. The Supreme Court has
found that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is not violated when a prison
inmate loses personal belongings due to the negligent or intentional actions of correctional
officers if the state provides an adequate post-deprivation compensatory remedy. See Hudson v.
Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984); Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 543 (1981).
The State of Connecticut provides an adequate remedy for the kind of deprivation the
plaintiff alleges. See State of Connecticut Department of Correction Administrative Directive
9.6(16) (Aug. 15, 2013) (providing Department of Correction’s Lost Property Board shall hear
and determine any claim by an inmate who seeks compensation not to exceed $3,500.00 for lost
or damaged personal property and that inmate may present the property claim to the Claims
Commissioner after the Board denies the claim in whole or in part); Conn. Gen. Stat. § 4-141 et
seq. (providing that claims for payment or refund of money by the state may be presented to the
Connecticut Claims Commission); S. v. Webb, 602 F. Supp. 2d 374, 386 (D. Conn. 2009)
(finding Connecticut has sufficient post-deprivation remedies for seizures of property by state

officials). The procedures by which the Department of Correction’s Lost Property Board or the
Connecticut Claims Commissioner shall hear and determine claims against the state are not
rendered inadequate simply because plaintiff anticipates a more favorable remedy under the
federal system or it may take a longer time under the state system before his case is resolved.
See Hudson, 468 U.S. at 535.
The plaintiff attaches evidence that on July 30, 2013, he filed an Inmate Grievance using
a Lost/Damages Investigation Form, CN 9609. On August 5, 2013, Warden Murphy determined
that the plaintiff’s claim that staff had stolen his hygiene and food items was without merit.
The plaintiff is and was aware of the remedies available under Administrative Directive
9.6(16) for pursuing a claim of lost property against Department of Correction officials as
evidenced by the partial copy of Administrative Directive 9.6 attached to his Complaint. He
does not allege that he took advantage of all of the available remedies by completing a Property
Claim form CN 9611 and sending the form and related documents to the Department of
Correction’s Lost Property Board in Wethersfield, Connecticut. The Lost Property Board is
permitted up to one year from the date of receipt of the property claim to review, investigate and
issue a decision. Furthermore, if the Lost Property Board denies a claim, the inmate may file a
claim with the Office of the Claims Commissioner.
The plaintiff does not allege that he pursued the procedures offered by Office of the
Claims Commissioner or that those procedures are inadequate. Accordingly, the property claims
against defendants Dzurenda, Murphy, Boland and Mortimer are dismissed for failure to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1).
In addition to his property claims under the Fourteenth Amendment, the plaintiff
generally alleges that the defendants violated his First, Fourth, Fifth and Eighth Amendment

rights. The plaintiff asserts no facts to suggest violations of his rights under any of these
amendments to the United States Constitution. Accordingly, the claims under the First, Fourth,
Fifth and Eighth Amendments are dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1).
ORDERS
All claims against all of the defendants are DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915A(b)(1). The Motion for Service [Doc. No. 4] of the Complaint is DENIED. The court
declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims. See 28 U.S.C.
1367(c)(3). If the plaintiff chooses to appeal this decision, he may not do so in forma pauperis,
because such an appeal would not be taken in good faith. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). The Clerk
is directed to enter judgment for the defendants and close this case.
SO ORDERED at Bridgeport, Connecticut this 22nd day of October 2014.

/s/ Stefan R. Underhill
STEFAN R. UNDERHILL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE