Davis v. McDaniel et al

Filing 11

INITIAL REVIEW ORDER. For the reasons stated in the attached Order, the Court enters the following orders: (1) The complaint will proceed on the claim against all defendants for use of excessive force. (2) The Clerk shall verify the current work addresses of defendants McDaniel, Szczygiel and Rehim with the Department of Correction Office of Legal Affairs, mail a waiver of service of process request packet to each defendant at the confirmed address within twenty-one (21) days of this O rder, and report to the court on the status of the waiver request on the thirty-fifth (35) day after mailing. If any defendant fails to return the waiver request, the Clerk 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 4(d). (3) The Clerk shall prepare a summons form and send an official capaci ty service packet to the U.S. Marshal Service. The U.S. Marshal is directed to effect service of the complaint on the defendants in their official capacities at the Office of the Attorney General, 55 Elm Street, Hartford, CT 06141, within twenty-one (21) days from the date of this order and to file a return of service within thirty (30) days from the date of this order. (4) The Clerk shall send written notice to plaintiff of the status of this action, along with a copy of this Order. ( 5) The Clerk 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. (6) The defendants shall file their response to the complaint, eithe r an answer or motion to dismiss, within sixty (60) days from the date the waiver form is sent. If they choose to file an answer, they shall admit or deny the allegations and respond to the cognizable claim recited above. They also may include any an d all additional defenses permitted by the Federal Rules. (7) Discovery, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 through 37, shall be completed within seven months (210 days) from the date of this order. Discovery requests need not be fi led with the court. (8) All motions for summary judgment shall be filed within eight months (240 days) from the date of this order. (9) 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. (10) If plaintiff changes his address at any time during the litigation of this case, Local Court Rule 83.1(c)2 provides that the plaintiff MUST notify the court. Failure to do so can result in the dismissal of the case. Plaintiff must give notice of a new address even if he is incarcerated. Plaintiff should write PLEASE NOTE MY NEW ADDRESS on the notice. It is not enough to just put the new address on a letter without indicating that it is a new address. If plaintiff has more than one pending case, he should indicate all of the case numbers in the notification of change of addr ess. Plaintiff should also notify the defendant or the attorney for the defendant of his new address. (11) Plaintiff shall utilize the Prisoner Efiling Program when filing documents with the court. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 9/2/16. (Levenson, C.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

MICHAEL DAVIS,
Plaintiff,
v.

No. 3:16-cv-1287 (JAM)

McDANIEL, et al.,
Defendants.
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915A
Plaintiff Michael Davis is confined at Osborn Correctional Institution. He has filed a
complaint pro se and in forma pauperis under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Based on my initial review
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, I conclude that the complaint should be served on all defendants.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff names three defendants: Captain McDaniel, Correctional Counselor Szczygiel,
and Correctional Officer Rehim, all of whom work at Garner Correctional Institution. All
defendants are named in their individual and official capacities.
The following allegations from plaintiff’s complaint are accepted as true for purposes of
the Court’s initial review. On January 28, 2016, at Garner Correctional Institution, plaintiff was
assaulted by Captain McDaniel and Correctional Officer Rehim. Doc. #1 at 5 (¶ 1). Plaintiff was
being transferred from his housing unit to restrictive housing as a result of a lost property
dispute. Before his transfer, he overheard Counselor Szczygiel tell Officer Rehim to “get him” in
the hallway. Doc. #1 at 5 (¶ 2). During the transfer, Officer Rehim stopped plaintiff in the
hallway and accused him of walking at a fast pace. Ibid. (¶ 3). Plaintiff and Officer Rehim
became upset with each other. Officer Rehim grabbed plaintiff by the hair and slammed his head
against the concrete wall three times, causing plaintiff to experience severe pain. Ibid. (¶ 4).

Captain McDaniel, the escorting supervisor, then sprayed a chemical agent in plaintiff’s face
without any warning or justification. Id. at 6 (¶ 5). During the entire incident, plaintiff was
restrained with handcuffs behind his back and was flanked on both sides by correctional officers.
Ibid. (¶ 6).
Plaintiff suffers from heart, lung, and brain conditions that place him at a serious risk of
harm from exposure to chemical agents and battery. Ibid. (¶ 7). Following the incident, plaintiff
experienced nightmares as well as extreme head and nerve pain. He filed medical requests and
administrative complaints but received no response. He was subsequently transferred out of
Garner Correctional Institution. Ibid. (¶ 8). Garner Correctional Institution is the primary housing
facility for inmates with mental health needs in Connecticut. Since his transfer from Garner,
plaintiff has been unable to receive the mental health treatment that he needs. Ibid. (¶ 9).
DISCUSSION
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), 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. The Court must accept as true all factual matters alleged in a complaint, although a
complaint may not survive unless its factual recitations state a claim to relief that is plausible on
its face. See, e.g., Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Mastafa v. Chevron Corp., 770
F.3d 170, 177 (2d Cir. 2014) (same). Nevertheless, it is well-established that “[p]ro se
complaints must be construed liberally and interpreted to raise the strongest arguments that they
suggest.” Sykes v. Bank of Am., 723 F.3d 399, 403 (2d Cir. 2013); see also Tracy v. Freshwater,
623 F.3d 90, 101-02 (2d Cir. 2010) (discussing special rules of solicitude for pro se litigants).
The use of excessive force against a prisoner may constitute cruel and unusual

2

punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment even if the prisoner does not suffer serious
injury. See Hudson v. Palmer, 503 U.S. 1, 4 (1992). In analyzing an excessive force claim, the
“core judicial inquiry” is “not whether a certain quantum of injury was sustained, but rather
whether force was applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously
and sadistically to cause harm.” Wilkins v. Gaddy, 559 U.S. 34, 37 (2010) (per curiam).
Here, plaintiff alleges that he was assaulted without cause while restrained. These
allegations are sufficient to state a plausible claim for use of excessive force.
CONCLUSION
In accordance with the foregoing analysis, the Court enters the following orders:
(1)

The complaint will proceed on the claim against all defendants for use of

excessive force.
(2)

The Clerk shall verify the current work addresses of defendants McDaniel,

Szczygiel and Rehim with the Department of Correction Office of Legal Affairs, mail a waiver
of service of process request packet to each defendant at the confirmed address within twentyone (21) days of this Order, and report to the court on the status of the waiver request on the
thirty-fifth (35) day after mailing. If any defendant fails to return the waiver request, the Clerk
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 4(d).
(3)

The Clerk 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 the defendants in their official capacities at the Office of the Attorney General, 55

3

Elm Street, Hartford, CT 06141, within twenty-one (21) days from the date of this order and to
file a return of service within thirty (30) days from the date of this order.
(4)

The Clerk shall send written notice to plaintiff of the status of this action, along

with a copy of this Order.
(5)

The Clerk 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.
(6)

The defendants shall file their response to the complaint, either an answer or

motion to dismiss, within sixty (60) days from the date the waiver form is sent. If they choose to
file an answer, they shall admit or deny the allegations and respond to the cognizable claim
recited above. They also may include any and all additional defenses permitted by the Federal
Rules.
(7)

Discovery, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 through 37, shall be

completed within seven months (210 days) from the date of this order. Discovery requests need
not be filed with the court.
(8)

All motions for summary judgment shall be filed within eight months (240 days)

from the date of this order.
(9)

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.
(10)

If plaintiff changes his address at any time during the litigation of this case, Local

Court Rule 83.1(c)2 provides that the plaintiff MUST notify the court. Failure to do so can result
in the dismissal of the case. Plaintiff must give notice of a new address even if he is incarcerated.
Plaintiff should write PLEASE NOTE MY NEW ADDRESS on the notice. It is not enough to

4

just put the new address on a letter without indicating that it is a new address. If plaintiff has
more than one pending case, he should indicate all of the case numbers in the notification of
change of address. Plaintiff should also notify the defendant or the attorney for the defendant of
his new address.
(11)

Plaintiff shall utilize the Prisoner Efiling Program when filing documents with the

court.
It is so ordered.
Dated at New Haven this 2nd day of September 2016.
/s/Jeffrey Alker Meyer
Jeffrey Alker Meyer
United States District Judge

5