Baltas v. Dones
| Decision Date | 27 April 2022 |
| Docket Number | 3:22-CV-38 (MPS) |
| Parties | JOE BALTAS, Plaintiff, v. ALEXANDER DONES, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut |
Plaintiff Joe Baltas, a sentenced inmate housed within the custody of the Connecticut Department of Correction (“DOC”) has filed this action against the State of Connecticut [1]Assistant State's Attorney (“ASA”) Adrienne Russo, and six DOC employees Officer Alexandro Dones, Officer Gervacio Negron, Officer Yavuz Usluca, Lieutenant William Rodriguez, Correction Officer David Savoie, Correction Officer Olsen, and Security Division Captain Robert Hartnett. Compl., ECF No. 1. The claims in this action were previously asserted in, and severed from, his prior case, Baltas v. Fitzgerald, 21cv587 (MPS). Id. at ¶ 22. See Initial Review Order (“IRO”), ECF No. 27, Baltas v. Fitzgerald, 21cv587 (MPS). Baltas claims violations of his rights under the United States Constitution and federal and state statutes, as well as under the state constitution and state common law. He seeks damages, injunctive relief for an investigation referral, and a prejudgment remedy. Id.
In his complaint, Baltas asserts Count One against ASA Russo for violation of his rights under the Fourth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments and federal statutes; Count Two against Dones, Negron, Usluca, and Rodriguez for violation of his rights under the First, Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments, civil conspiracy statutes, and federal criminal statutes; Count Three against the State of Connecticut based on the negligent conduct of its employees Dones, Negron, Usluca, and Rodriguez; Count Four against Defendants Hartnett and Rodriguez for violation of his rights under the First, Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments, civil conspiracy statutes, and federal criminal statutes due to their deliberate indifference and failure to supervise; Count Five against Officers Savoie and Olsen for violations of his rights under the First, Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments, civil conspiracy, and violation of federal criminal statutes; Count Six against Captain Hartnett for violation of his rights under the First, Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments, civil conspiracy, and violation of federal criminal statutes based on a failure to protect Baltas from harm by taking steps to deter future abuse, by failing to supervise subordinate staff, and by engaging in a pattern of conspiratorial misconduct; and Count Seven against all defendants for violation of the Racketeer Influence and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961 et seq., civil conspiracy statutes, and federal criminal statutes.[2] Compl. at ¶¶ 134-160.
For the following reasons, the Court will permit some of Baltas's claims under the Eighth and First Amendments to proceed beyond initial review.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), the court must review prisoner civil complaints against governmental actors and “dismiss ... any portion of [a] complaint [that] is frivolous, malicious, or 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.” Id. Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that a complaint contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2).
Although detailed allegations are not required, Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). A complaint that includes only “‘labels and conclusions,' ‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action' or ‘naked assertion[s]' devoid of ‘further factual enhancement, '” does not meet the facial plausibility standard. Id. ). Although courts still have an obligation to interpret “apro se complaint liberally, ” the complaint must include sufficient factual allegations to meet the standard of facial plausibility. See Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir. 2009) (citations omitted).
For purposes of initial review, the Court considers all of the following allegations to be true.
On June 6, 2018, Baltas was transferred from Garner Correctional Institution to Corrigan-Radgowski Correctional Center (“Corrigan”). Compl. at ¶ 25. While housed at Corrigan, Baltas allegedly suffered numerous civil rights violations that are the subject of a separate action, Baltas v. Fitzgerald. Id. at ¶ 28.
After Baltas filed numerous grievances at Corrigan, Warden Faucher placed him on a “Grievance Restriction” on July 10, 2018. Id. at ¶ 29.
On September 6, 2018, Baltas attended a court date for his habeas trial with his counsel, Attorney Frank Cannatelli. Id. at ¶ 30. The State was represented by ASA Russo. Id. At no time did Baltas express any threats against anyone or interact with anyone except his attorney. Id. at ¶ 32. However, ASA Russo argued that Baltas should be kept in restraints during trial. Id. at ¶ 31. The court denied her request. Id.
On September 7, ASA Russo emailed Attorney Cannatelli stating that she had information that Baltas was planning to engage in violence directed at him. Id. at ¶ 33. ASA Russo later contacted DOC and similarly accused Baltas of harboring intent to engage in violence against correctional staff. Id.
On September 10, 2018, Baltas was called to the Intelligence Office where he was interviewed by Intelligence Lieutenant Tammaro and Intelligence Administrative Counselor Doran, who informed him that they had received a report that Baltas was planning to assault Lieutenant Fitzgerald. Id. at ¶ 36. Baltas denied these assertions and Counselor Supervisor Doran admitted that the allegations against Baltas came under unusual circumstances. Id. at ¶ 37. DOC officials determined that the allegations had no merit. Id. Baltas was returned to the A-Pod where he interacted with Lieutenant Fitzgerald without incident. Id.
On September 11, 2018, Baltas had a legal call with his attorney, who informed him about ASA Russo's email and that such involvement by an ASA was “extremely odd.” Id. at ¶ 38.
That evening, Baltas was taken to the RHU pending the investigation into the false allegations. Id. at ¶ 39.
On September 12, 2018, Counselor Supervisor Doran informed Baltas that the matter had been considered resolved but that the State's Attorney had called the facility administration and expressed displeasure with their failure to act on her report and secure staff safety. Id. at ¶ 40. This prompted Baltas's placement in the RHU. Id. Baltas alleges that the ASA who contacted DOC was ASA Russo. Id. at ¶ 41.
As a result of the false allegations, Baltas was for the first time during his incarceration placed on a heightened security Special Transportation Unit list. Id. at ¶ 42.
On September 13, Baltas was brought to the Admitting and Processing (“AP”) area for his transport to another hearing at state superior court in Rockville, Connecticut. Id. at ¶ 44.
The Special Transportation team (Defendants Negron, Dones, and Usluca) arrived to transport him; Baltas noted that the team of three were wearing full tactical gear and ballistic vests, which was unusual as correctional staff are not generally “decked out for combat.” Id. at ¶¶ 45-46. Baltas noticed that Officer Dones had a white skull “Punisher” emblem, which is prohibited by DOC Directive 2.13 and signified he was in a semi-secret group of officers who engage in “significant violence” against inmates. Id. at ¶¶ 47-48. The team placed Baltas into full restraints, with handcuffs attached to a waist chain attached to a tether chain that connected his ankle shackles to his waist chain (“Chubbs”). Id. at ¶ 49. These restraints fully restrain an individual so that any resistance or struggle is impossible. Id. Officer Negron asked Baltas whether he liked to assault staff, but Baltas had at that time never assaulted any correctional staff member. Id. at ¶ 50. The team escorted him to the transport vehicle in the rear cab, which has no windows or ventilation. Id. at ¶ 51. Officer Usluca secured Baltas's seatbelt as required under state law and prison regulations. Id. at ¶ 52. He was transported to superior court without incident during the trip of approximately 45 minutes. Id. at ¶ 53.
Upon arrival at approximately 10:00 AM, Baltas exited the cab of the truck and Correction Officers Dones and Negron escorted him, holding onto his arms, although they are not required to conduct “hands-on” escorts, which are not permitted under prison regulations unless a prisoner is combative. Id. at ¶¶ 54-55. During the escort, Negron pinched Baltas's arm, which caused him pain. Id. at ¶ 56. Baltas asserts that this tactic is used by correctional staff to invoke a visible response so that the inmate looks as if they are “pulling away.” Id. Baltas ignored the pinching and proceeded to the lock-up area of the courthouse where he was silent and compliant. Id. at ¶ 57. The restraints were removed and Baltas was secured in his cell. Id.
After his hearing ended favorably, Baltas was returned to his holding cell. Id. at ¶ 58. At that time, he was provided with spoiled juice that he tossed toward the trash bin outside the cell. Id. at ¶ 59. The juice landed on the floor. Id.
Officer Negron, Dones, and Usluca returned to the cell escorted by Judicial...
To continue reading
Request your trial