Currytto v. Doe et al

Filing 15

ORDER. For the reasons set forth in the attached, the Court hereby issues the following orders:(1)The complaint is hereby dismissed without prejudice. The plaintiff may, within thirty (30) days of the date of this order, submit an am ended complaint alleging facts in support of one of the aforementioned causes of action. The plaintiff may pursue other unrelated claims in a separate action. Failure to comply with these instructions may result in dismissal of the case with prejudice.(2)The plaintiff's motions for preliminary injunctive relief (ECF Nos. 8, 12) and motion to strike (ECF No. 11) are DENIED as moot. The plaintiff may file a new motion for a preliminary injunction in a new action setting forth a cause of action related to that motion.Signed by Judge Michael P. Shea on 7/10/2018. (Self, A.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
KEVIN W. CURRYTTO,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN DOE, et al.
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CASE NO. 3:18-cv-808 (MPS)

July 10, 2018

________________________________________________________________________
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER
On May 11, 2018, the plaintiff, Kevin W. Currytto, an inmate currently confined
at Osborn Correctional Institution in Somers, Connecticut, brought a civil action pro se
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against thirty employees of the Connecticut Department of
Correction for violating his rights under the United States Constitution, Connecticut
Constitution, and the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). He seeks preliminary
injunctive relief and damages against the defendants. On June 1, 2018, this court granted
the plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 10).
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, 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. 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. Bell
Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-56 (2007). Conclusory allegations are not
sufficient. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). The plaintiff must plead “enough
facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic, 550 U.S. at 570.

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) (quoting Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470
F.3d 471, 474 (2d Cir. 2006)); see also Tracy v. Freshwater, 623 F.3d 90, 101-02 (2d Cir.
2010) (discussing special rules of solicitude for pro se litigants).
The plaintiff’s complaint alleges claims against thirty defendants at three separate
prison facilities (MacDougall-Walker Correctional Institution, Osborn Correctional
Institution, and Bridgeport Correctional Center) for four separate and distinct causes of
action: (1) violations of the Eighth Amendment protection against cruel and unusual
punishment, Connecticut Constitution, and the ADA by subjecting him to unnecessarily
short chow hall meal times, (2) Eighth Amendment violation for deliberate indifference
to his arm injury and heart problem, (3) Fourteenth Amendment Due Process violation
for failing to properly process his medical grievances, and (4) Eighth Amendment
violation for deliberate indifference to his mental health needs. Rule 20 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure permits joinder of claims against multiple defendants only if
two criteria are satisfied: (1) the claims “aris[e] out of the same transaction, occurrence,
or series of transactions and occurrences; and (2) “any question of law or fact common to
all defendants will arise in the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2). The four causes of
action stated in the complaint are against separate defendants and are generally unrelated
to each other. Thus, the complaint fails to comply with Rule 20 and must be dismissed.

2

ORDERS
(1) The complaint is hereby dismissed without prejudice. The plaintiff may,
within thirty (30) days of the date of this order, submit an amended complaint alleging
facts in support of one of the aforementioned causes of action. The plaintiff may pursue
other unrelated claims in a separate action. Failure to comply with these instructions may
result in dismissal of the case with prejudice.
(2) The plaintiff’s motions for preliminary injunctive relief (ECF Nos. 8, 12) and
motion to strike (ECF No. 11) are DENIED as moot. The plaintiff may file a new motion
for a preliminary injunction in a new action setting forth a cause of action related to that
motion.
It is so ordered.
Dated at Hartford, Connecticut this 10th day of July 2018.

___________/s/______________
Michael P. Shea
United States District Judge

3