Brown v. Dep't of Corr.

CHRISTOPHER BROWN, Plaintiff, v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ET AL, Defendants

Civ. No. 3:16-cv-00376(WIG)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

January 13, 2021

CORRECTED RULING ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT¹

Plaintiff Christopher Brown, a state prisoner, brings this four count complaint against thirteen employees of the Connecticut Department of Corrections, (together, the "Defendants") alleging violations of his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to the United States Constitution, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983. (See Third Amend. Compl. ("TAC"), ECF No. 89). He alleges a violation of procedural due process rights by continual confinement in administrative segregation without meaningful periodic reviews and for unlawful regressions to Phase 1 of the Administrative Segregation Program, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Id. ¶¶48, 49. He also alleges deliberate indifference to his mental health needs and deliberate indifference to unconstitutional conditions of confinement in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (ECF No. 89 ¶¶50, 51).

Pending before the Court is Defendants' motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 172), to which Brown has objected. (ECF No. 183.) For the reasons set forth below, Defendants' motion is GRANTED.

I. DEFENDANTS

Plaintiff brings this action against thirteen Defendants: Scott Erfe, is/was the former Warden at Cheshire CI; William Mulligan, former Warden at NCI; Anne Cournoyer, former Warden at NCI; Jacqueline Bachan, Counseling Supervisor; Dr. Mark Frayne, Psychologist; Dr. Gerard Gagne, Psychiatrist; Jesse Johnson, Captain at Cheshire CI; Karl Lewis, Director of Offender Classification and Population Management; David Maiga, Acting Director of Offender Classification and Population Management; William Longo, Mental Health Social Worker at NCI; Edward Maldonado, District Administrator; Angel Quiros, District Administrator; and [first name omitted] Robles, Captain.

The claims against former Commissioner Scott Semple were dismissed by agreement on September 30, 2019. (ECF No. 114).

In response to Defendants' motion, Plaintiff agreed to the entry of summary judgment against certain Defendants and causes of action. Accordingly, summary judgment will enter as follows:

The Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED as to Defendants Maiga and Maldonado on the due process claims under the Fourteenth Amendment arising out of Plaintiff's initial A/S review. It is undisputed that Defendants David Maiga and Edward Maldonado were not involved in Plaintiff's initial placement or the hearing process for Plaintiff's initial placement in A/S in 2013. (Def. 56(a)(1) Stat. ¶¶5, 6; Pl. 56(a)(2) Stat. ¶¶5, 6).

The Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED as to Defendants Dr. Frayne, Dr. Gagne and Counselor Longo on all due process claims under the Fourteenth Amendment arising out of Plaintiff's placement in Administrative Segregation. (TAC ¶¶48, 49). Plaintiff agrees that Defendants Dr. Frayne, Dr. Gagne and Counsel Longo "had no personal involvement in [Plaintiff's] initial placement in A/S, his A/S reviews, or his A/S regressions." (ECF No. 183-5 at 21, n. 2).

The Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED as to Defendants Johnson, Robles, Lewis and Bachan on the Eighth Amendment claim alleging deliberate indifference to mental health needs. (TAC ¶50). "Plaintiff agrees with Defendants' argument that this claim does not apply to Defendants Johnson, Robles, Lewis and Bachan." (ECF No. 183-5 at 22, n. 5).

The Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED as to all Defendants on the Eighth Amendment claim alleging deliberate indifference to unconstitutional conditions of confinement. (TAC ¶51). "Plaintiff acknowledges that he filed no grievances as to specific conditions of confinement required for adjudication of an Eighth Amendment claim...." (ECF No. 183-5 at 23).

Accordingly, the Court will address the supervisory liability claims against the remaining six Defendants: former District Administrator Quiros, former Warden Maldonado and Director of Offender Classification and Population Management Maiga on the Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claims and the Eighth Amendment claims against former Wardens Erfe, Maldonado, Cournoyer and Mulligan alleging deliberate indifference to his mental health needs.

II. FINDINGS OF FACT

The following facts are drawn from the parties' Local Rule 56(a)(1) and 56(a)(2) Statements of Undisputed Material Facts and exhibits in the record.

Plaintiff Christopher Brown

At all times relevant to this lawsuit, Plaintiff, a state prisoner, was incarcerated at the Cheshire Correctional Institution ("Cheshire CI"), located in Cheshire, Connecticut and at Northern Correctional Institution ("NCI"), located in Somers, Connecticut.² (ECF No. 89, TAC ¶1). Inmates in the Administrative Segregation ("A/S") Program, Phase 1, were housed at NCI and inmates in A/S, Phases 2 and 3, were housed at Cheshire CI. (Local Rule 56(a)(1), ECF No. 172-1 ¶2; Local Rule 56(a)(2), ECF No. 183-1 ¶2).

Fourteenth Amendment Claims against Defendants Quiros, Maiga, and Maldonado Initial Placement at NCI December 2013

Plaintiff was initially placed in A/S in November 2013. Def. 56(a)(1) ¶1; Pl. 56(a)(2)¶1. At all times relevant to Plaintiff's Complaint, inmates in the A/S Program, Phase 1, were housed at NCI and inmates in A/S, Phases 2 and 3, were housed at Cheshire CI. Def. 56(a)(1) ¶2; Pl. 56(a)(2)¶2.

Plaintiff was housed at NCI from December 3, 2013 through June 3, 2014; October 27, 2014 through March 3, 2015; and September 1, 2015 through January 9, 2017. (Def. Ex. L ¶3; Pl. Ex. C; ECF No. 172-2 at 7, n.1; ECF No. 185-5 at 5 ).³

In a declaration submitted in support of summary judgment District Administrator Angel Quiros avers that he was not directly involved in the recommendation or approval of Plaintiff's placement in A/S in 2013. (Def. Ex. B ¶6). Warden Scott Erfe sent a memo dated November 4, 2013, to D.A. Angel Quiros and Director of OCPM Karl Lewis "recommend[ing]" that inmate Brown be placed in the A/S program at NCI due to his involvement in a serious physical assault on November 3, 2013, "in which he was the aggressor." (Def. Ex. B, Attach. 1). The recommendation was approved by the Director of OCPM Karl Lewis on November 4, 2013, stating "transfer [] pending due A/S hearing/placement." Id.

As the District Administrator, Quiros avers that he was not directly involved in any inmate's placement in A/S. The recommendation and hearing process for A/S placement occurs at the facility level with additional levels of approval but does not require District Administrator involvement. Id. ¶4. The final approval or denial of A/S placements was completed by the Director of Offender Classification and Population Management (OCPM). At all times relevant to this lawsuit the Director of OCPM was either Karl Lewis or David Maiga. Id. ¶5. Quiros was not directly involved in the recommendation or approval for the Plaintiff's placement in A/S in 2013, and he was not involved in the hearing process for Plaintiff's placement in A/S in 2013. Id. ¶6). Although he was copied on a letter noting the recommendation for Plaintiff to be placed on A/S, id. ¶7, Attach. 1, he did not approve the Plaintiff's placement in A/S as it was not his responsibility to do so, nor did he have authority to deny or approve the placement. Id. ¶7.

Finally, it is undisputed that Plaintiff was initially placed on A/S only after receiving "notice, a hearing, and an opportunity to be heard." (ECF No. 183-5 at 5 ("Plaintiff was formally placed in A/S on December 3, 2013, following notice, a hearing and an opportunity to be heard."). Progression, Regression and Periodic Reviews

Defendant Angel Quiros

At all times relevant to this case, Angel Quiros was the District Administrator ("D.A.") for District 1 for the Connecticut Department of Correction. In this position, Quiros oversaw eight Correctional Facilities: Cheshire CI, Enfield, CI Garner CI, MacDougall-Walker CI, Manson YI, Northern CI, Osborn CI and York CI. (Def. Ex. B, Quiros Decl. ¶2).

As District Administrator, Quiros was not involved in periodic reviews of inmates in the A/S program. Id. ¶8. This was done at the facility level. Id. ¶8. At all times relevant to this lawsuit he was assured that appropriate periodic reviews were conducted for inmates in the A/S program and at no time was there any reason for him to believe that the Plaintiff was not receiving appropriate periodic reviews. Id. ¶8. Although he was not directly involved in the regression process for inmates in the A/S process, occasionally he would be informed of and administratively approve regression based on the recommendation for inmates to be regressed.

In this case, he was informed of a recommendation to regress the Plaintiff to phase 1 of the A/S program by Captain Johnson, the Unit Administrator for the A/S unit at Cheshire CI in August 2015. Id. ¶10. At that time, Captain Johnson informed him that Plaintiff had been found with contraband on three occasions, and that information had been collected which indicated Plaintiff was manipulating his attorney to bring him contraband. Warden Erfe agreed with Captain Johnson's assessment. Id.¶10. He relied upon their assessment and the information they gave him, which he had no reason to believe was inaccurate, when he informed them that he concurred with their recommendation. Id.¶10.

The final decision to regress Plaintiff in 2015 was done by the Multidisciplinary Progression Team/Facility Classification Committee, which also completed periodic reviews of inmates in A/S. He was not part of that team or committee. Id. ¶11. He does not recall being informed of or in any way involved in any other decisions to regress or progress the Plaintiff within the A/S program. Id. ¶11.

As District 1 Administrator, he reviewed Level 2 grievance appeals arising out of the facilities under his supervision. Id. ¶12. He did not receive, investigate, or respond to level 1...