Wilson v. Conn. Dep't of Corr.

JOHNATHAN WILSON, Plaintiff, v. CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Defendants.

3:20cv1567 (MPS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

December 16, 2020

INITIAL REVIEW ORDER

The plaintiff, John Wilson, a sentenced inmate¹ currently in the custody of the Connecticut Department of Correction ("DOC") at Garner Correctional Institution, filed this civil rights complaint pro se and in forma pauperis under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the DOC,² former Commissioner Rollin Cook, Acting Interim Commissioner Angel Quiros, Deputy Commissioner Cheryl Cepelak, Director of Security Antonio Santiago, District Administrator William Mulligan, Director of Classification David Maiga, Karen Martucci, Carl Robinson Correctional Institution ("Carl Robinson") Warden Zelynette Caron, Northern Correctional Institution ("Northern") Warden Roger Bowles, Northern Counselor Supervisor Mangiafico, Carl Robinson Lieutenant Oulette, Carl Robinson Intelligence Phone Monitor Ramirez, Disciplinary Hearing Officer ("DHO") Lieutenant Grimaldi, Northern Correction Officer Leone, Northern CorrectionOfficer LaPrey, Carl Robinson Correction Officer Canales, Northern Correction Officer Cieboter, and Correction Officer John Doe in their official and individual capacities. Compl. (ECF No. 1).

Wilson alleges violation of his First, Fifth, Fourteenth and Eighth Amendment rights under the United States Constitution. Id. at ¶ 1. He sues the defendants in their official and individual capacities for damages and declaratory and injunctive relief.³ Id. at ¶¶ 47-53. He also requests a security lien to be placed upon the assets and/or properties of each defendant. Id. at ¶ 54.

I. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court must review a prisoner's civil complaint against a governmental entity or governmental actors and "identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint—(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." If the prisoner is proceeding pro se, the allegations of the complaint must be read liberally to raise the strongest arguments that they suggest. See Tracy v. Freshwater, 623 F.3d 90, 101-102 (2d Cir. 2010).

In recent years, the Supreme Court has set forth a threshold "plausibility" pleading standard for courts to evaluate the adequacy of allegations in federal court complaints. A complaint must allege enough facts—as distinct from legal conclusions—that give rise to plausible grounds for relief. See, e.g., Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). Notwithstanding the rule of liberal interpretation of a pro se complaint, a pro se complaint may not survive dismissal if its factual allegations do not meet the basic plausibility standard. See, e.g., Fowlkes v. Ironworkers Local 40, 790 F.3d 378, 387 (2d Cir. 2015).

II. ALLEGATIONS

On March 13, 2020, Warden Caron placed Carl Robinson under lock down due to COVID-19. (ECF No. 1 at ¶ 21). During this time, Warden Caron toured the facility and addressed questions from the inmates. Id. Wilson asked her if she could resolve the problem with laundry because the clothing was being returned dirtier than when it was sent to be laundered. Id. She responded that "the water is what was dirty." Id. He also asked her why inmates's visits had been cut off while officers were allowed to go home. Id. She responded that the officers had not broken the law. Id. Her other responses to concerns about unsanitary conditions of confinement in the 3B Unit of Carl Robinson (black mold, flooding in the bathroom, unclean floor, bunks, etc.) emphasized the divide between the inmates and correctional officers. Id. She promised bleach and supplies to clean the bunks and surrounding area. Id.

Thereafter, the inmates did not see her again and did not receive bleach or cleaning supplies; and the dorm was swept and mopped by inmates who had no interest in the hygiene of the dorm. Id. at ¶ 22. Wilson and other inmates asked correctional staff about their access tobleach, why the dorm was filthy, and why the inmates in the dorm could not clean their own area themselves. Id. The correctional staff stated that they were under the impression the inmates had received cleaning agents. Id. However, no cleaning supplies were provided to the inmates. Id.

The hostility between the inmate population and the prison administration grew from the start of the lockdown on March 13, 2020 to April 1, 2020. Id. at ¶¶ 23, 24. Food trays were being left at the bottom of the stairs and open to the elements. Id. The dorm bathroom remained flooded, and the dorm was unclean. Id. Correctional officers contracted COVID-19 and were out "sick." Id.

On April 1, 2020, the animosity almost caused a riot in Dorm 3B. Id. at ¶ 24. A Code Eleven (for flagrant disobedience or a combative inmate) was called about an inmate getting a cup of water and not getting on top of his bunk quickly enough. Id. When the correctional staff rushed in, the inmates argued with the officers and explained that the inmate had done nothing wrong. Id. Wilson held the inmate back from "getting into it" with the officers. Id.

At 4:00 PM on April 1, all inmate in Dorms 4A, 4B, 3A, and 3B refused dinner. Id. at ¶ 25. Wilson drafted a small note about the issues that the inmates wanted to discuss about remedying the unsanitary conditions of confinement. Id. The note was brought to Lieutenant Oullette, who took picture of the note and then maintained his watch at the dorm. Id. Wilson kept the younger inmates from erupting into frenzied violence while they waited for the Warden to come to their dorm. Id.

At 4:30 PM, Warden Caron entered the dorm. Id. at ¶ 26. Wilson, who had agreed to speak on behalf of the other inmates, informed her of the inmates' frustrations with unsanitary living conditions and unfair treatment from correctional staff. Id. He noted that the dorm hadalmost rioted and that the inmates had not received bleach or the ability to clean their bunks. Id. Warden Caron responded that this was because the inmates drink the bleach. She said she did not know what to do because the pandemic was unprecedented. Id. After Wilson suggested that an officer walk around with a spray bottle, Deputy Warden Kenny indicated that Wilson's suggestion could be possible and he would look into it. Id. Other inmates asked about the black mold around the windows and the flooded bathroom. Id.

Thereafter, the inmates were permitted to cook commissary food and had normal movement on modified lockdown. Id. at ¶ 27. A correctional officer walked around with a spray bottle of bleach so that inmates could clean their bunk areas. Id. On April 2, 2020, the inmates ate their three meals and masks were handed out. Id. at ¶ 28.

On April 3, 2020, Wilson was called to the activities building where he was met by thirty correctional officers with K-9s. Id. at ¶ 29. He received no response to his question about what he had done and was patted down and placed in cuffs. Id. Lieutenant Oullette gave a head nod to Officer John Doe, who then proceeded to open Wilson's medicine bag without his permission. Id. Wilson was "physically assaulted" and forcibly moved from Carl Robinson to Northern by order of Warden Caron and Director Maiga. Id.

Upon arrival at Northern, he was subjected to a "Three Point Strip Search," reclothed, and placed in shackles and cuffs with a tether chain. Id. He was escorted to Unit One West, Cell 118. Id. at ¶ 30.

On Sunday, April 5, 2020, Wilson was told that he was on administrative detention, although he had not yet received a disciplinary report. Later that day, he received the disciplinary report, although it was dated April 4, 2020. Id. The disciplinary report was written by CorrectionOfficer Canales but the Investigating Officer was Lieutenant Oullette.⁴ Id. at ¶ 31. The disciplinary report charged Wilson with orchestrating a hunger strike on April 1, 2020. Id. at ¶ 33. The evidence cited telephone calls listened to by Correction Officer Ramirez and camera footage. Id. The investigation by Correction Officer Leone into the disciplinary report took almost two months due to extensions. Id. at ¶ 34

During the investigation, Wilson was held at Northern, a Level 5 maximum security prison, although he was a Level 2 inmate, which is the lowest security level for an incarcerated inmate. Id. At Northern, Wilson was placed in an isolation cell that was seven by twelve feet with another Level 5 inmate. Id. He sought mental health treatment numerous times without success. Id.

On April 22, 2020, Wilson was appointed Officer LaPrey as an advisor. Id. at ¶ 35. On April 27, 2020, LaPrey claimed to have reviewed the camera footage, although he later stated that he had not checked it. Id.

After forty days in administrative detention, Wilson was found guilty by Investigator Leone and DHO Grimaldi, who said he was "not finding [Wilson] guilty of the facts, but rath er of [Wilson's] standing in the inmate community." Id. at ¶ 36. Officer Cieboter came to the meeting rather than Wilson's appointed advisor LaPrey. Id.

On May 18, 2020, a hearing for Wilson's Administrative Segregation was held. Id. at ¶ 37. On May 26, 2020, Hearing Officer Tugie recommended against Wilson's placement in Administrative Segregation. Id. at ¶ 38. However, Director of Offender Classification andPopulation Management Maiga decided to place Wilson in Administrative Segregation based on a letter he had received about Wilson from Warden Caron dated April 7, 2020. Id.

On July 14, 2020, Wilson's disciplinary guilty finding was overturned by District Administrator Nick Rodriguez. Id. at ¶ 39. Wilson had noted inconsistencies in his hearings for his disciplinary report and Administrative Segregation. Id. He also noted that he had missing property, including a religious item that was last seen...