Jaynes v. Quiros et al

Filing 12

ORDER denying ECF No. 2 , Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; denying ECF No. 5 , Motion to Appoint Counsel; denying ECF No. 11 , Motion to Appoint Counsel. See attached for details. Signed by Judge Omar A. Williams on 9/25/24. (Wagner, R)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

TROY LAMAR JAYNES,
Plaintiff,

Civil No. 3:24-cv-00267 (OAW)

v.
QUIROS, et. al.,
Defendants.

ORDER ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
Plaintiff Troy Lamar Jayne, an inmate in the custody of the Department of
Correction at Garner Correctional Institution, filed a complaint against Commissioner
Quiros, Deputy Warden John Doe, Warden Doe, Unit Manager Doe, and Dr. Lavetta. ECF
No. 1. Plaintiff has filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis to commence this action
without pre-paying the $402 filing fee. See ECF No. 2. Upon review, the court concludes
that Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis must be DENIED.
The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) amended 28 U.S.C. § 1915 by adding
the following subsection, the so-called “three strikes” provision:
(g) In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or appeal a judgment in
a civil action or proceeding under this section if the prisoner has, on 3 or
more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought
an action or appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on
the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of
serious physical injury.

1

Before initiating this action, Plaintiff had filed more than three cases dismissed for failure
to state a claim. Jaynes v. New Haven Police Dept, 3:07-547(RNC) (dismissed May 29,
2007), Jaynes v. Superior Court, 3:07-1051(AVC) (dismissed July 18, 2007), Jaynes v.
Quiros, 3:21cv657(VLB) (dismissed October 2, 2021), Jaynes v. Sweeney, 3:21cv1464
(VAB) (dismissed July 1, 2022). Thus, this case is subject to the restrictions of Section
1915(g), and Plaintiff may not bring this action without paying the filing fee absent
allegations of “imminent danger of serious physical injury.” See Pettus v. Morgenthau,
554 F.3d 293, 297 (2d Cir. 2009).
“[T]he complaint of a three-strikes litigant must reveal a nexus between the
imminent danger it alleges and the claims it asserts, in order for the litigant to qualify for
the ‘imminent danger’ exception of § 1915(g).” Id. at 298. Whether such a nexus exists
depends on whether (1) “the imminent danger of serious physical injury that a threestrikes litigant alleges is fairly traceable to the unlawful conduct asserted in the complaint,”
and (2) “a favorable judicial outcome would redress that injury.” Id. at 298–99. In addition,
the danger of imminent harm must be present at the time the prisoner files his or her
complaint. See id. at 296; Akassy v. Hardy, 887 F.3d 91, 96–97 (2d Cir. 2018).
The court reviews the allegations in the complaint to consider whether the
imminent danger exception applies. See Abreu v. Farley, 415 F. Supp. 3d 342, 345
(W.D.N.Y. 2019). In his complaint, Plaintiff claims that he never eats “salt or sugar
because it is bad for [his] health,” that his “grandparents were born diabetics,” even having
“their legs amputated before they died,” and that he has informed a doctor and the deputy
warden that he has “lost []35 pounds from 280 pounds and [his] last meal of the day is at
2

5pm dinner.” ECF No. 1, at 1. Plaintiff allegedly suffers from “thyroid and blood sugar”
and is not “H.C.V. nor [is he] H.I.V. positive.” Id. He complains that “money from [his]
account is being over deducted . . . and to the best of [his] recollection [his] funds are
being stolen.” Id. He asserts further that the doctor “offered [him] a low calorie diet” and
“refused to give [him] a 1-8 oz cup of peanut butter only until [he] receive[s his] 1st order
of food from commissary.” Id. at 2. Plaintiff alleges that the doctor is prejudiced as he
“only assists inmates of his own ethnic history” and “refuse[d] to test [Plaintiff’s] blood for
all contagious diseases.” Id.
He states that an African-American nurse withdrew two tubes of blood from him
and negligently labelled the tubes with her own handwriting that someone could smudge
in the future. He asserts that “[a]ll the thyroid and blood sugar pills are always missing
and I don’t take the pills never.” Id. Plaintiff states that he is “not a diabetic” and has
“never had covid.” He represents that providing him with an eight-ounce cup of peanut
butter will resolve this matter. Id. at 3.
Plaintiff mentions many medical issues in his complaint. He acknowledges he
does not have Hepatitis C (HCV), HIV, or diabetes. He makes some indication that he
has a thyroid condition but fails to allege that his health is at risk if he does not have
access to thyroid medication. Nor has he alleged facts suggesting that he is in any
serious physical danger due to the doctor’s refusal to provide him peanut butter and a
blood test. His concern about someone smudging the handwritten labels for his blood
samples is entirely speculative.

In sum, no allegations suggest that Plaintiff faces any

imminent danger of serious physical injury. Thus, Plaintiff is not entitled to proceed in
3

forma pauperis because he is not “under imminent danger of serious physical injury”
within the meaning of Section 1915(g).
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, hereby is
DENIED. Plaintiff shall pay the filing fee on or before October 25, 2024. Failure to do
so will result in dismissal of this action. The court notes that if Plaintiff does pay the filing
fee, then his complaint will be reviewed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires the
court to dismiss any civil rights complaint from a prisoner if it “(1) is frivolous, malicious,
or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief
from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). Plaintiff’s
Motions to Appoint Counsel, ECF Nos. 5 and 11, hereby are DENIED without prejudice
to renewal should any of his claims go forward.

IT IS SO ORDERED at Hartford, Connecticut, this 25th day of September, 2024

/s/
OMAR A. WILLIAMS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4