Davis v. Chapdeline et al

Filing 10

INITIAL REVIEW ORDER: For the reasons stated in the attached Ruling and Order, Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915A(b). By 5/23/2016, Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint which addresses the deficiencies identified in this Order. If Plaintiff does not file an amended complaint by this date, the Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of the Defendants and close this case. The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Order to the Plaintiff. Signed by Judge Vanessa L. Bryant on 5/2/2016.(Nadler, S.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
TONY P. DAVIS,
Plaintiff,
v.
WARDEN CHAPDELAINE, ET AL.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Case No. 3:16-cv-268(VLB)
May 2, 2016

RULING AND ORDER
The plaintiff, Tony P. Davis (“Davis”), is currently confined at MacDougall
Correctional Institution in Suffield, Connecticut. He has filed a complaint pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, naming Warden Chapdelaine, Captains Butkiewicus and Sharp,
and Lieutenant Burgos as defendants.1 For the reasons set forth below, the
complaint is dismissed with leave to amend.
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. 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
1

Plaintiff incorrectly refers to Warden Chapdelaine as Warden Chapdeline in the
Complaint. The State of Connecticut Department of Correction website lists Carol
Chapdelaine as the Warden of MacDougall-Walker Correctional Institution. See
http://www.ct.gov/doc/doc/site/default.asp.

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 interpret “a pro se complaint
liberally,” the complaint must include sufficient factual allegations to meet the
standard of facial plausibility. Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir. 2009) (citations
omitted).
The Plaintiff asserts that on April 1, 2015, at MacDougall-Walker Correctional
Institution, Lieutenant Burgos handcuffed him behind his back, escorted him to a
cell in the restrictive housing unit and placed him in the cell with another inmate.
The plaintiff’s cellmate assaulted him while he was still in handcuffs. The plaintiff
alleges that Warden Chapdelaine, Captains Butkiewicus and Sharp and Lieutenant
Burgos were aware that his cellmate had refused other cellmates in the past at other
correctional institutions, and that he was a “big problem” at MacDougall. [Dkt. #1,
Compl. at 4]. The Complaint does not allege any facts to suggest that any of the
defendants knew that the inmate exhibited any violent tendencies or that he
engaged in any prior acts of violence. The Plaintiff claims that the defendants
should have known that his cellmate might cause him harm.

2

The court construes the Plaintiff’s allegations as a claim that the defendants
failed to protect him from assault by his cellmate. The Eighth Amendment imposes
a duty on prison officials “to take reasonable measures to guarantee the safety of
inmates in their custody.” Hayes v. New York City Dep’t of Corrections, 84 F.3d 614,
620 (2d Cir. 1996) (citing Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832-33 (1994)). In Farmer,
the Supreme Court set forth a two-part test to determine when a prison employee’s
failure to protect an inmate from harm rises to the level of a constitutional violation.
Under the first part of the test, the prisoner must demonstrate that, objectively, his
or her conditions of incarceration posed a “substantial risk of serious harm.” Id. at
834. Under the second part of the test, the prisoner must show that, subjectively,
the prison official acted with deliberate indifference to the prisoner’s health or
safety. An official acts with deliberate indifference when he or she knows that the
inmate faces a substantial risk to his or her health or safety and disregards that risk
by failing to take corrective action. See id. at 837, 847. A prison official who
“actually knew of a substantial risk to inmate health or safety,” but responded in a
reasonable manner to the risk, “may be found free from liability” under the Eighth
Amendment, “even if the harm ultimately was not averted.” Id. at 844.
The conditions of confinement in the restrictive housing unit as described by
the Plaintiff did not pose a serious risk of harm to him. Furthermore, the facts do
not suggest that the defendants were on notice that his cellmate had violent
tendencies and might assault him. The plaintiff only alleges that the defendants
knew that his cellmate had refused other inmates and was a known problem at the

3

facility. The facts as alleged in the complaint do not state a plausible Eighth
Amendment claim that the defendants failed to protect the plaintiff from a known
and substantial harm. Thus, the claims against the defendant are dismissed. See
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1).
ORDERS
The court enters the following orders:
(1)

All claims against the defendants are DISMISSED pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1).
(2)

The court will permit the plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint

within twenty-one days of the date of this order in order to assert facts which meet
the Eighth Amendment standard for stating a failure to protect claim against the
defendants. The amended complaint should include facts showing how the
conditions of confinement in the restrictive housing unit posed a serious risk of
harm to his safety and how each defendant was aware of and disregarded the risk to
his safety.
(3)

If the plaintiff does not file an amended complaint within the time

specified, the clerk shall enter judgment in favor of the defendants and close this
case.
SO ORDERED at Hartford, Connecticut this 2nd day of May, 2016.
_________/s/____________________
VANESSA L. BRYANT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4