Baltas v. Bowers
| Docket Number | 3:23-cv-0764 (VAB) |
| Decision Date | 21 July 2023 |
| Parties | JOE BALTAS, Plaintiff, v. SHANNON BOWERS, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut |
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER
Joe Baltas (“Plaintiff”), currently confined at MacDougall-Walker Correctional Institution in Suffield Connecticut, has filed a Complaint pro se under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Mr. Baltas names fifteen defendants in their individual capacities only, Lieutenant Shannon Bowers Warden Robert Martin, Officer Francis, Officer John Doe 1 Officer John Doe 2, Officer John Doe 3, Officer John Doe 4 Officer John Doe 5, RN Dave, LPN Jerikah, Lieutenant Nicholas Briatico, Deputy Warden Damien Doran, Warden Daniel Dougherty, APRN Sara Schauer, and Dr. Francisco Lupis. He seeks damages on several claims for violation of his constitutional rights.
The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires that federal courts review complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a government entity or officer or employee of a government entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Upon review, the Court must dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(b), 1915A(b).
The Court has thoroughly reviewed all factual allegations in the complaint and conducted an initial review of the allegations therein under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Based on this initial review, the Court orders as follows:
All conspiracy claims, all claims for violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242, 271, 371, and 1519; all claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1985, 1986, and 1988; all federal claims for spoliation or destruction of evidence and violation of the federal FOIA; and the state law claims for violation of the Connecticut FOIA and intentional spoliation of evidence are DISMISSED under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1).
The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Baltas' claims for violation of Article first, sections 1, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, and 20 of the Connecticut Constitution, and his state law claims for violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 18-96b(g).
The case will proceed on the First Amendment retaliation claim against Defendants Bowers and Francis, the Eighth Amendment claim for use of excessive force against Defendants Bowers and Officer Does 1-5, the Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to medical and mental health needs against Defendants Bowers, Martin, Briatico, Dave, Jerikah, Doran, Dougherty, Schauer, and Lupis, and the state law claims for assault and battery against Defendants Bowers and Officer Does 1-5.
Mr. Baltas' motions seeking prejudgment remedy [ECF Nos. 4, 5] and limited early discover [ECF No. 11] are DENIED.
For purposes of initial review, the Court considers all of the following allegations to be true. While the Court does not set forth all of the facts alleged in Mr. Baltas' Complaint (ECF No. 1), it summarizes his basic factual allegations here to give context to its ruling below.
On October 5, 2022, Mr. Baltas allegedly requested that that documents, video footage, and other records be preserved for his use in another case, but later allegedly discovered that they had not been preserved and instead were destroyed. Lieutenant Bowers allegedly was the FOI Liaison at Corrigan Correctional Institution (“Corrigan”) when Mr. Baltas submitted the requests for preservation. In that capacity, she allegedly was responsible for preserving the materials, providing them to Mr. Baltas, and maintaining a record of the requests and materials. Lieutenant Bowers allegedly received Mr. Baltas' various requests and issued receipts or responded to the requests, but allegedly did not preserve the requested video footage and permitted other documents to be destroyed. Id. ¶¶ 31-36, 64. When confronted on the issue, Lieutenant Bowers allegedly said she did not preserve the evidence because she was “not about to let [Mr. Baltas] jam up staff.” Id. ¶ 70.
On September 26, 2022,[1] Mr. Baltas allegedly was removed from Special Needs Status at Walker Correctional Institution, where he had been held in solitary confinement, and transferred back to Corrigan. He allegedly was classified as Single Cell Status Level 4 General Population. Id. ¶¶ 41-42. On October 2, 2022, Mr. Baltas allegedly was assigned to cell 122 in F-Unit, a handicap cell on the bottom tier of the unit in an area where inmates congregate during recreation. Id. ¶ 43. Mr. Baltas allegedly has been diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder, borderline personality disorder, general anxiety disorder, panic disorder, cognitive disorder, dysthymic disorder, major depressive disorder, and post-traumatic stress disorder. He allegedly has hypersensitivity to loud noises and social interactions and suffers severe anxiety, panic attacks, aggressive behavior, suicidal and homicidal ideations, and a complete lack of impulse control when subjected to these conditions. Id. ¶ 44.
Lieutenant Bower allegedly was the unit manager of F-Unit. Id. ¶ 45. Mr. Baltas allegedly discovered that the electrical and cable outlets in his cell did not work and that inmates congregated outside his cell and engaged in loud and chaotic behavior. The cell allegedly was also near the shower so all inmates in the unit passed his cell daily. As Mr. Baltas allegedly had not been exposed to other inmates for four years, he allegedly began to experience severe anxiety and panic attacks and was in a constant manic state. Id. ¶¶ 46-47.
On October 2, 2022, Mr. Baltas allegedly met with Lieutenant Bowers and complained about the conditions in his cell and the location of the cell. He also allegedly stated that he was not handicapped and should not be housed in a handicap cell. Mr. Baltas allegedly stated that his mental illness and impulses were urging him to remove the assistive bars in the cell and use them as weapons. He also allegedly told her the presence of inmates outside his cell was triggering his mental illnesses and would cause negative behavior. Id. ¶ 48. Mr. Baltas allegedly asked to be moved to a cell in an area with less activity, preferably on the top tier. Although Lieutenant Bowers allegedly said she would move him in a few days, she allegedly never intended to do so. Id. ¶¶ 49-50. Mr. Baltas allegedly experienced constant severe anxiety and panic attacks, suicidal and homicidal ideations, and was unable to sleep for more than two hours per night. Id. ¶ 53.
Mr. Baltas also allegedly complained that he had not been evaluated by mental health staff, as was required under prison directives. Nor did Lieutenant Bowers refer Mr. Baltas to mental health to address his suicidal and homicidal ideations. Id. ¶ 55.
On October 4, 2022, Mr. Baltas allegedly informed Warden Martin of his concerns about his property, the conditions of his cell, and the lack of mental health treatment. He allegedly told Warden Martin that he did not think he could suppress his urges to use the bars in the cell as weapons for much longer. Mr. Baltas also allegedly asked Warden Martin to put him on “feed back” status so he could eat alone in his cell. Warden Martin allegedly said he would discuss a move with Lieutenant Bowers. He allegedly did not obtain mental health treatment for Mr. Baltas or order “feed back” status. Id. ¶¶ 56-60. Mr. Baltas alleges that Warden Martin and Lieutenant Bowers intended to exacerbate Mr. Baltas' conditions so he would engage in behavior that could be used to remove him from Corrigan. Id. ¶ 62.
On October 6, 2022, Lieutenant Bowers and Officer Francis allegedly toured the housing unit. Mr. Baltas allegedly overheard Lieutenant Bowers tell Officer Francis to harass Mr. Baltas and manipulate him to engage in misconduct so Mr. Baltas could be removed from Corrigan. Id. ¶¶ 65-66. When Mr. Baltas allegedly asked Lieutenant Bowers about moving to one of the empty cells on the top tier, Lieutenant Bowers allegedly said she did not make convenience moves. Mr. Baltas allegedly tried to explain that the move was not for convenience but was necessary because he could not live in the current cell. However, Lieutenant Bowers allegedly stated that Mr. Baltas would “just have to suffer like he deserves, or he could refuse housing and go to seg where he belongs.” Id. ¶ 67. Lieutenant Bowers also allegedly told Mr. Baltas that “they didn't want him there” because he was a “paper pushing pain in the ass.” Id. ¶¶ 67-68. Mr. Baltas allegedly threatened to file a lawsuit against Lieutenant Bowers about her failure to preserve evidence. Id. ¶ 72.
Lieutenant Bowers allegedly followed Mr. Baltas back to his cell and began speaking to him so he was standing in the doorway and could not enter the cell. Lieutenant Bowers allegedly was angry at Mr. Baltas' threat of litigation and slammed the cell door against Mr. Baltas' body. When he allegedly told her not to assault him again, Lieutenant Bowers again allegedly tried to slam the door, but Mr. Baltas held onto the door and prevented her from doing so. Id. ¶¶ 74-75.
The alleged attempted assault triggered panic and anxiety attacks and caused Mr. Baltas to experience flashbacks of prior incidents with correctional staff. He allegedly entered the cell and Lieutenant Bowers allegedly slammed the door. Id. ¶ 76. Mr. Baltas allegedly was in a manic state and could not control his anxiety. He allegedly believed that Lieutenant Bowers would fabricate an incident to have him placed in segregation and that, on the way to segregation, staff would allege that Mr. Baltas was trying to pull away from the escorting officers and assault him. Id. ¶ 77.
Defendants Bowers and Francis...
To continue reading
Request your trial