Baltas v. Maiga

1

JOE BALTAS, Plaintiff, v. DAVID MAIGA, in his individual and official capacities, ROLLIN COOK, in his individual and official capacities, ANGEL QUIROS, in his individual and official capacities, JACLYN OSDEN, in her individual and official capacities, and JESSICA SANDLER, in her individual and official capacities, Defendants.

Civil Action No. 3:20cv1177 (MPS)

United States District Court, D. Connecticut

August 24, 2022

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Michael P. Shea, United States District Judge

The plaintiff, Joe Baltas, who was formerly incarcerated at the Red Onion State Prison (“Red Onion”) in Pound Virginia, commenced this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C § 1983, asserting constitutional violations related to his transfer to Virginia and the conditions of his confinement in Virginia against former Connecticut Department of Correction (“DOC”) Commissioner Rollin Cook former Deputy Commissioner and current Commissioner Angel Quiros, Director of Classification and Population Management David Maiga, and Correctional Counselors Jessica Sandler and Jacklyn Osden. Compl., ECF No. 1, Am. Compl., ECF No. 63; Notice of Address, ECF No. 149.^[1] After initial review of the amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court permitted the case to proceed on Baltas' individual capacity claims on the following constitutional claims: (1) First Amendment retaliation; (2) deprivation of his First Amendment right to free flow of mail, communication with counsel, and access to the courts; (3) Sixth Amendment violations; (4) Fourteenth Amendment equal protection violation; and (5) Fourteenth Amendment due process violation.^[2] Initial Review Order (“IRO”), ECF No. 116; Compl., ECF No. 63.^[3]

Defendants have filed a motion for summary judgment on all claims against them. Mot. for Summ. Judg., ECF No. 229. Defendants have submitted a memorandum of law (ECF No. 229-1), a Local Rule 56(a)1 statement of facts (ECF No. 229-2) and supporting exhibits (ECF No. 229-3 to 229-9). Baltas has filed an opposition (ECF No. 245), a Local Rule 56(a)2 statement (ECF No. 246) and supporting exhibits (ECF No. 246-1 to 246-4). Both Defendants and Baltas have filed reply memoranda. Defs.' Reply, ECF No. 256, Pl.'s Reply, ECF No. 263.

After thoroughly considering the extensive materials submitted by the parties, the court will grant Defendants' motion for summary judgment.

I. FACTS^[4]

The Connecticut DOC's Interstate Management Unit (“IMU”) is responsible for transferring Connecticut inmates to out-of-state facilities under the Interstate Corrections Compact (“ICC”). Defs.' Rule 56(a) at ¶ 2.^[5] Out-of-state transfers can occur on a voluntary basis (when the inmate consents) or on an involuntary basis (when the inmate does not consent). Id. The IMU seeks involuntary interstate transfers for an inmate after a warden or another supervisor within DOC submits a request and the IMU has authorization from Director Maiga to search for a state to accept the inmate. Id. at ¶ 3.

When seeking a transfer for an inmate, the IMU sends a referral packet to States that could logistically accept the inmate. One factor that States consider in deciding whether to accept a Connecticut inmate is the inmate exchange history with Connecticut DOC. Id. at ¶ 5.

The IMU usually has a list of Connecticut inmates being considered for out-of-state transfers, and it prioritizes transferring inmates based upon the specific circumstances. Id. at ¶ 6. After a State agrees to house a Connecticut inmate as an out-of-state inmate, the IMU arranges to transport the Connecticut inmate to the out-of-state facility. Id. at ¶ 7. In accordance with ICC contracts, Connecticut must retake an inmate who is housed in another state if the receiving state requests removal of that inmate Id. at ¶ 10; see Osden decl. at ¶ 23.

The IMU relies on the receiving State to provide notification about a Connecticut inmate's safety being in jeopardy and to make sure that any appropriate action is taken. Defs.' Rule 56(a) at ¶ 12. Maiga, who is Director of Offender Classification and Population Management and Director of Sentence Calculation and Interstate Management, avers that Connecticut DOC assumes that a receiving State manages an inmate in an appropriate manner, but he also received confirmation from the Virginia Interstate Coordinator that the VA DOC had no concerns about continuing to house Mr. Baltas, even after the incidents described below. Maiga decl. at ¶¶2, 12, 19.

ICC Contract Between Connecticut and Virginia

The contract for implementation of the ICC between Connecticut and Virginia provides:

Inmates while in the custody of the receiving state shall be subject to all the provisions of law and regulations applicable to persons committed for violations of law of the receiving state not inconsistent with the sentence imposed.

Defs.' Rule 56(a) at ¶ 8; see Sandler decl. at ¶ 67, ex. BB at ¶ 17. It also requires Virginia DOC to afford Connecticut transfer inmates care and treatment (including the furnishing of subsistence and all necessary medical and hospital services and supplies); provide for the physical needs of the Connecticut transfer inmates; and retain and supervise Connecticut transfer inmates in safe custody. Defs.' Rule 56(a) at ¶ 9; see Sandler decl. at ¶ 68, ex. BB at ¶ 13.

Baltas' Transfer to Massachusetts

In December 2016, DOC Garner Correctional Institution (“Garner”) Warden Falcone submitted a request to the IMU for Baltas' out-of-state transfer due to “safety and security concerns based on [Baltas'] extremely violent behavior and gang influence.”^[6] Defs.' Rule 56(a) at ¶ 13; Sandler decl. at ¶ 11, ex. A. Warden Falcone's letter stated that Baltas had an association with the Diablos Motorcycle Gang; had stabbed another inmate with a “shank” in 2014; was discovered in 2014 to be in possession of a notebook listing the names of jurors, the names of Diablo leaders throughout the U.S., and instructions for making a bomb; had made repeated threats against correctional staff; had barricaded himself inside his cell and then resisted staff's efforts to remove him from the cell resulting in a staff member's injury; and had “separation profiles” with other inmates, making it difficult to transfer him to a different facility within the Connecticut DOC. Defs.' Rule 56(a) Statement at ¶ 13. Warden Falcone stated that Baltas' “gang influence and propensity to violence pose a significant risk to the operation of the institution.” Sandler Dec., Ex A. Baltas was not transferred to an out-of-state facility in response to Warden Falcone's request. Defs.' Rule 56(a) at ¶ 14.

In a memo dated March 13, 2018, DOC Garner Warden Dilworth made another request for Baltas' out-of-state transfer. Id. at ¶ 15. Warden Dilworth's memo “provide[d] additional information that continues to support our belief that inmate Baltas poses a significant risk to the operation of the institution.” Sandler Dec., Ex. B. The memo stated that after Warden Falcone's out-of-state transfer request, Baltas had received seven disciplinary reports for misconduct, including threatening to stab staff, covering his cell door window, and exposing himself to female staff members; that he had multiple staff and inmate profiles at all level four facilities within Connecticut DOC; that he had numerous separation profiles with staff and inmates; and that he had filed a “complaint with his attorney” and administrative remedies representing that he was at risk due to his active profile with a staff member and his fear of retaliation. Id. See Sandler decl. at ¶ 13, ex. B.

In June 2018, the IMU compiled a referral packet requesting multiple states to accept the Baltas' transfer. Defs.' Rule 56(a) at ¶ 16. On October 30, 2018, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts agreed to accept Baltas “under the provisions of the Interstate Compact Agreement ... contingent upon inmate Baltas not becoming a management problem[.]” Id. at ¶ 17; Sandler decl. at ¶ 15, ex. C.

The IMU was responsible for coordinating the court appearances for Baltas as a Connecticut inmate transferred to an out-of-state facility. Defs.' Rule 56(a) at ¶ 18. While Baltas was housed in the Massachusetts correctional facility, the IMU was having problems arranging for videoconferencing between the Connecticut Superior Court and Massachusetts Department of Correction. Id. DOC has a fugitive unit that can transport inmates back to Connecticut for court dates, but DOC's preference is to have inmates appear remotely by video due to safety and security risks associated with transporting inmates. Id. at ¶ 19.

Baltas had numerous court dates in Connecticut in 2019 while he was housed in the Massachusetts correctional facility. Id. at ¶ 20. On July 31, 2019, Counselor Supervisor Osden inquired with the Connecticut Superior Court's clerk's office in Rockville, Connecticut, about whether the Superior Court could connect to the videoconferencing equipment at the Massachusetts facility for Baltas' court dates. Id.

On August 2, 2019, the IMU received an email from staff at the Connecticut Superior Court indicating difficulty with effecting videoconferencing for Baltas at his Massachusetts facility (Souza-Baranowski Correctional Center). Id. at ¶ 21. Although Defendant Sandler attempted to assist the Connecticut Superior Court by connecting the clerk's office with the videoconferencing scheduler at the Massachusetts facility, the Connecticut Superior Court had not yet resolved the videoconferencing issue by August 19, 2019. Id. at ¶¶ 22-23. Connecticut Superior Court staff informed Sandler that Baltas needed to return in-person to Connecticut for two court dates in September 2019. Id. at 23.

On September 10, 2019, Baltas was transferred to...