Gonzales v. Jurella et al

Filing 9

RULING AND ORDER Discovery due by 8/6/2015 Dispositive Motions due by 9/7/2015 Signed by Judge Alvin W. Thompson on 2/5/2015.(Payton, R.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

JEAN GONZALEZ,
Plaintiff,
v.

CASE NO. 3:14-cv-1250(AWT)

ANDREW IWEKA, ET AL.,
Defendants.

RULING AND ORDER
The plaintiff is currently incarcerated at CorriganRadgowski Correctional Institution in Uncasville, Connecticut
(“Corrigan”).

He has filed an Amended Civil Rights Complaint

naming Correctional Officers Andrew Iweka, Jesse Johnson,
Michael Fraser and Bournival and Nurse Meuller.
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.

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
1

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 13, 2014 at Corrigan,
defendant Fraser handcuffed him and together with defendant
Bournival escorted him out of North Block 5 Unit.

Defendant

Bournival applied unnecessary force to the plaintiff’s left
wrist causing the plaintiff pain.
on the ground and refused to move.

The plaintiff then lay down
Defendant Fraser sprayed the

plaintiff in the face with a chemical agent.

The plaintiff got

up and walked to the segregation unit.
Defendants Fraser and Bournival strip-searched the
plaintiff and placed him in leg and wrist restraints that were
connected by a tether chain.

The plaintiff complained to
2

defendants Fraser, Mueller, Iweka and Johnson that the
restraints were too tight.

The defendants ignored the

plaintiff’s complaints and walked away.

A few minutes later,

defendants Johnson and Iweka approached the plaintiff’s cell to
speak to him.

The plaintiff showed them that he was unable to

stand upright because the restraints were too tight, but they
refused to adjust the restraints.
The next morning a nurse loosened the restraints.

On June

22, 2014, a nurse examined the plaintiff and prescribed
medication for his complaints of pain.
The plaintiff seeks monetary damages and declaratory relief
from the defendants.

The request for monetary damages against

the defendants in their official capacities is barred by the
Eleventh Amendment.

See Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159 (1985)

(Eleventh Amendment, which protects the state from suits for
monetary relief, also protects state officials sued for damages
in their official capacity); Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 342
(1979) (Section 1983 does not override a state’s Eleventh
Amendment immunity).

All claims for monetary damages against

the defendants in their official capacities are being dismissed
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(2).
The court concludes that the allegations in the Amended
Complaint state plausible claims of excessive force and
3

deliberate indifference to safety of an inmate in violation of
the Eighth Amendment.

(See Hayes v. New York City Dept. of

Corrections, 84 F.3d 614, 620 (2d Cir. 1996) (“The Eighth
Amendment requires prison officials to take reasonable measures
to guarantee the safety of inmates in their custody.
511 U.S. at [833], 144 S.Ct. at 1976.

Farmer,

Moreover, under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983, prison officials are liable for harm incurred by an
inmate if the officials acted with ‘deliberate indifference’ to
the safety of the inmate.

Morales v. New York State Dep't of

Corrections, 842 F.2d 27, 30 (2d Cir. 1988).

However, to state

a cognizable section 1983 claim, the prisoner must allege
actions or omissions sufficient to demonstrate deliberate
indifference; mere negligence will not suffice.”).)

These

claims will proceed against the defendants in their official and
individual capacities.
ORDERS
The court enters the following orders:
(1)

All claims for damages against the defendants in their

official capacities are DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(b)(2).

The claims of excessive force and deliberate

indifference to safety will proceed against the defendants in
their official and individual capacities.

4

(2)

Because the plaintiff paid the filing fee to commence

this action, he is not entitled to have service effected by the
court.

The plaintiff shall effect service of the Amended

Complaint on the defendants in their individual and official
capacities in accordance with the requirements of Rule 4, Fed.
R. Civ. P., within 60 days of the date of this order and file
returns of service within 70 days of the date of this order.
Failure to comply with this order will result in the dismissal
of all claims against the defendants.
(3) The Clerk shall send the plaintiff instructions for
service of the Amended Complaint, together with five blank
Notice of Lawsuit and Waiver of Service of Summons forms to
enable the plaintiff to serve a copy of the Amended Complaint on
the defendants in their individual capacities and five blank
summons forms for the plaintiff to complete and return to the
Clerk for issuance to enable the plaintiff to serve a copy of
the summons and Amended Complaint on each defendant in his or
her official capacity using the address of the Office of the
Attorney General, 55 Elm Street, Hartford, Connecticut 06141.
(4) The Clerk shall send a courtesy copy of this order to
the Connecticut Attorney General and the Department of
Correction Legal Affairs Unit.
5

(5)

Defendants shall file their response to the Amended

Complaint, either an answer or motion to dismiss, within sixty
(60) days from the date the Notice of Lawsuit and Waiver of
Service of Summons forms are mailed to them.

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.
(6)

Discovery, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure 26 through 37, shall be completed within six months
(180 days) from the date of this order.

Discovery requests need

not be filed with the court.
(7)

All motions for summary judgment shall be filed within

seven months (210 days) from the date of this order.
(8)

If the plaintiff changes his address at any time

during the litigation of this case, Local Court Rule 83.1(c)2
provides that he MUST notify the court.
result in the dismissal of the case.

Failure to do so can

The plaintiff must give

notice of a new address even if he is incarcerated.

The

plaintiff should write “PLEASE NOTE MY NEW ADDRESS.”

It is not

enough to just put the new address on a letter without
indicating that it is a new address.
6

If the plaintiff has more

than one pending case, indicate the case numbers in the
notification of change of address.

The plaintiff should also

notify each defendant or the attorney for that defendant, if
appropriate, of his or her new address.
It is so ordered.
Signed this 5th day of February 2015 at Hartford,
Connecticut.

/s/AWT
Alvin W. Thompson
United States District Judge

7