Orellano v. Papoosha

JONATHAN ORELLANO, Plaintiff, v. DANIEL PAPOOSHA, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 3:20-cv-00480 (VLB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

May 25, 2021

INITIAL REVIEW ORDER

On April 9, 2020, Plaintiff Jonathan Orellano, currently in the custody of the State of Connecticut Department of Correction ("DOC"), brought a complaint pro se and in forma pauperis under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against several DOC officials in their official and individual capacities: Bridgeport Correctional Center ("BCC") Lieutenant Daniel Papoosha, BCC Warden Alison Black, BCC Warden Butricks, BCC Lieutenant and Disciplinary Hearing Officer Eberle, BCC Corrections Officer White, Corrigan-Radgowski Correctional Center ("Corrigan") Warden Faucher, Corrigan Warden Corcella, Security Risk Group ("SRG") Coordinator John Aldi, former Director of Security Christine Whidden, Director of Security Antonio Santiago, Commissioner Scott Semple, Director of Offender Classification and Population Management David Maiga, and District Administrator Edward Maldonado. [ECF No. 1 (Compl.)].

After his case was closed for failure to correct his motion to proceed in forma pauperis or to pay the fee, Plaintiff filed a motion to reopen the case and filed an amended complaint. See [ECF Nos. 9, 17]. The Court granted Plaintiff's motion to reopen the case. See [ECF No. 22].

Plaintiff's Amended Complaint alleged violation of his rights as a pretrial detainee under the United States Constitution, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act ("RFRA") and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act ("RLUIPA") against Lieutenant Papoosha, Warden Butricks, Lieutenant Eberle, Corrections Officer White, Warden Faucher, Warden Corcella, SRG Coordinator Aldi, former Director Whidden, Director Santiago, Commissioner Semple, Commissioner Rollin Cook, Director Maiga, and District Administrator Maldonado in their individual and official capacities.¹ [ECF No. 17].

On initial review, the Court applied the Fourteenth Amendment as it considered Plaintiff to be a pretrial detainee during his confinements in 2017 and after October 2018. [ECF No. 23 at 20-30]. The Court permitted the following individual capacity claims to proceed: Plaintiff's procedural due process claim against Maiga in his individual capacity based on the 2018 SRG designation/placement decision; his procedural due process claims against Corcella and Maldonado based on the lack of periodic review for his SRG placement/classification; and his substantive due process claims against Corcella, Maldonado, Maiga, Santiago, and Papoosha based on his allegedlypunitive confinements in the SRG Program in 2017, BCC administrative detention, and Corrigan SRG Program. See Id. at 19, 22-25, 31. The Court dismissed Plaintiff's Fifth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment indifference claims, his First Amendment retaliation claims, and his First Amendment free exercise, RLUIPA and RFRA claims. Id. The Court afforded Plaintiff the opportunity to file an amended complaint to allege facts to correct the deficiencies identified in the initial review order. Id.

On January 8, 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend his complaint indicating that he wanted to amend his First Amendment free exercise, RLUIPA, and RFRA allegations. [ECF No. 29]. The Court granted his motion and advised him that any amended complaint will completely replace the prior complaint in the action, and that no portion of any prior complaint shall be incorporated into his amended complaint by reference. [ECF No. 30].

Plaintiff has now filed his amended complaint alleging claims of First and Fourteenth Amendment violation, RFRA and RLUIPA violation, and state law claims of negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress against Lieutenant Papoosha, Security Director Santiago, Director of Offender Classification Maiga, District Administrator Maldonado, and Corrigan Warden Corcella in their individual and official capacities. [ECF No. 34]. The Court notes that Defendants have already answered this amended complaint. [ECF No. 36].

The Court conducts an initial review of Plaintiff's amended complaint.

I. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, this 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 Defendant fair notice of the claims and the grounds upon which they are based and to demonstrate a right to relief. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-56 (2007). Conclusory allegations are not sufficient. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Plaintiff must plead "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Twombly, 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)).

II. ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff alleges that he was a pretrial detainee incarcerated at BCC, MacDougall-Walker Correctional Institution ("MacDougall"), and Corrigan at all times relevant to this complaint. [ECF No. 34 ¶ 3]. He is currently incarcerated at BCC. Id.

In March 2016, Plaintiff was affiliated as a member of the Crips during his incarceration within DOC; he was sent to Phase 2 of the Security Risk Group ("SRG") Program. Id. ¶ 11. In October 2016, Plaintiff completed his prison sentence and was released on a three-year Special Parole. Id. ¶ 12.

In May 2017, Plaintiff violated the conditions of parole by placing gang-related posts on his Facebook page. Id. ¶ 13. Plaintiff was put into segregation for the Facebook posts and confined to the SRG unit as a pretrial detainee without violation of a facility rule. Id. ¶ 14. Plaintiff was sent back to Phase 2 of the SRG Program; and in November 2017, he completed six months of the SRG Program while detained for his Parole violation. Id. ¶ 15.

In October 2018, Plaintiff was reincarcerated on new charges. Id. ¶ 16. He was placed in segregation when he returned to prison in 2018 at a supermax facility, because Plaintiff had not finished his SRG time during his last incarceration; he alleges his placement was without legitimate penological justification. Id. ¶¶ 17, 18.

In November 2018, Plaintiff was transferred to Corrigan in the Phase 3 SRG Program. Id. ¶ 20. Plaintiff did not receive any review of his placement to determine if he posed a threat to safety and security. Id. ¶ 21.

Defendant Maldonado denied all of Plaintiff's appeals despite the violations of his rights as a pretrial detainee. Id. ¶¶ 23-24.

Plaintiff's unlimited and indefinite SRG confinement has subjected him to psychological, emotional, and physical suffering and distress. Id. ¶ 19.

Plaintiff alleges the following conditions of the SRG Program at Corrigan. Plaintiff was not permitted to receive "good time" credit, and was not eligible for parole, a halfway house placement or other reentry programs. Id. ¶ 25. Any social contact through the door was strictly prohibited, and Plaintiff received only one hour of recreation per day while the other 23 hours of the day were spent in his cell. Id. ¶¶ 26-27. Plaintiff had only one hour of vigorous exercise a week. Id. ¶ 28. Plaintiff could purchase only $40 from the commissary, while the general population can purchase $75, or $150 on the holidays. Id. ¶ 29. Plaintiff was permitted three phone calls a week, while six calls are allowed in the general population; he had to use a toothbrush the size of a pinkie to brush his teeth as opposed to the regular size tooth brush permitted in the general population; had to use a flex pen the size of his index finger to write instead of a Bic pen provided to the general population; could receive only visits from his immediate family, while the general population inmates can receive visits from anyone; had to eat his breakfast, lunch and dinner in the cell next to a toilet shared with a cellmate; and had no access to a toilet brush to clean the interior of the toilet. Id. ¶¶ 29-35. Plaintiff did not have access to hot water to warm up his food, while the general population inmates can order hot pots to warm and cook their food. Id. ¶ 36. Plaintiff was not allowed to receive food or cosmetics from another inmate or givesuch items to another inmate, while general population inmates can bring anything out of their cells. Id. ¶ 37.

Plaintiff was unable to practice his religion or to participate in correctional programming. Plaintiff had no access to religious services for his Catholic faith, while the general population has access to Catholic services at least twice a week. Id. ¶ 38. Plaintiff alleges inability to attend Mass service was a burden to his religious beliefs. Id. There were no religious services held while Plaintiff was in the SRG Program, no educational programming, and no access to the library. Id. There are absolutely no programs to help the inmates better themselves in all SRG Program phases. Id. ¶ 41.

Plaintiff was not allowed to wear thermal pants or sweatpants under his jumper regardless of the temperatures outside, while the general population inmates are permitted to wear these clothes. Id. ¶ 39. Plaintiff was forced to live with inmates who have a rival affiliation, although inmates have died due to conflicts among SRG members. Id. ¶ 40. These measures are all allegedly punitive in nature. Id. ¶ 42.

III. DISCUSSION

In his most recent amended complaint, Plaintiff alleges constitutional violations of his rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and RFRAand RLUIPA.² He also alleges state law claims of negligence and intentional infliction of emotional...