Dorlette v. Butkiewicus
| Decision Date | 04 September 2013 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 11-cv-1461 (TLM) |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut |
| Parties | Faroulh Dorlette, Plaintiff, v. Dave Butkiewicus, et al., Defendants |
RULING
Before the Court is the Motion for Summary Judgment [Rec. Doc. 54] and Memorandum of Law in Support [Rec. Doc. 54-23] filed by defendants David Butkiewicus, Jeffrey McGill, Bradley Guertin, John Frasco, Mark Tourangeau, Frederick Levesque, Stephen Clapp, Kristan Mangiafico, Mary Marcial, Scott Salius, Brian Bradway, Theresa Lantz, Brian Murphy, Valerie Light, and Lynn Milling (together, "Defendants"), and the Brief in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [Rec. Doc. 62] filed by pro se plaintiff Faroulh Dorlette. For the reasons set forth below, Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment will be granted. All of Plaintiff's claims will be dismissed with prejudice.
On December 17, 2007, Plaintiff Faroulh Dorlette, an inmate in the custody of the Connecticut Department of Correction (hereinafter "DOC"), was transferred to Northern Correctional Institution (hereinafter "NCI"), where he was housed in the facility's close custody unit. Def. 56.1 St. ¶¶ 5, 23 [Rec. Doc. 54-29, at 2, 4]. NCI, a level-five maximum security institution, is designated to manage inmates who have demonstrated that they pose a threat to the safety of the community, staff, and other inmates. Id. ¶ 13 [Rec. Doc. 54-29, at 3]. The close custody unit in particular is a housing unit at NCI which houses inmates classified as securityrisk group members, id. ¶ 16, which the DOC recognizes as members of "discrete entit[ies]" of inmates who possess common characteristics and together represent a threat to other individuals at the facility. Id. ¶¶ 19-21 [Rec. Doc. 54-29, at 4]. Plaintiff has been classified as a security risk group member in the DOC system since 2002. Id. ¶ 22.
On May 6, 2008, Plaintiff was transferred to the close custody unit run by defendant Butkiewicus, Dorlette Aff. ¶ 3 [Rec. Doc. 62-6, at 10], a Correctional Captain at NCI. Butkiewicus Aff. ¶¶ 4-5 [Rec. Doc. 54-18, at 2]. Plaintiff alleges that immediately upon his May 6 transfer into Butkiewicus' unit, Butkiewicus began a campaign to harass and intimidate Plaintiff, accusing him of an intent to "cause trouble," threatening to "ship" him "out of state," and stating that he planned to "give a few inmates incentives to make something up" to accomplish this plan. Dorlette Aff. ¶ 3 [Rec. Doc. 62-6, at 10]. Plaintiff further alleges that Butkiewicus told him at their initial meeting that Butkiewicus would blame Plaintiff for "whatever happens in [Butkiewicus'] unit." Id. [Rec. Doc. 62-6, at 10-11]. Plaintiff asserts that this campaign of harassment and intimidation continued over the course of the next month. Id. ¶ 4 [Rec. Doc. 62-6, at 11]. During these confrontations, Plaintiff claims he repeatedly told Butkiewicus he had no intention to cause trouble, but that Butkiewicus' "tough talk" did not scare him. Id. ¶ 3 [Rec. Doc. 62-6, at 10-11]. Plaintiff's responses allegedly caused Butkiewicus to "become even more aggravated" and issue still more threats about transferring Plaintiff out of state. Id. ¶¶ 3-4 [Rec. Doc. 62-6, at 11]. Over the course of this month, Plaintiff attests that he informed defendant Warden McGill of Butkiewicus' continued "threatening and harassing conduct." Id. ¶ 6 [Rec. Doc. 62-6, at 12]. In response, Plaintiff claims that McGill told him to stop complaining about Butkiewicus and warned Plaintiff that Butkiewicus can "do what he pleases in his unit." Id.
Butkiewicus attests that he followed normal procedure in speaking with Plaintiff upon Plaintiff's entrance into his unit; during their initial conversation, Butkiewicus informed Plaintiff that he knew Plaintiff was a "high ranking" and "influential" member of a security risk group, that because of this designation Butkiewicus would be "closely monitoring [Plaintiff's] activities in the unit," and that he would hold Plaintiff "accountable for his actions." Butkiewicus Aff. ¶¶ 18-19 [Rec. Doc. 54-18, at 4]. Butkiewicus disputes that he ever threatened to have Plaintiff "shipped out of state" for any wrongdoing that occurred in the unit. Id. ¶ 20.
On June 3, 2008, an inmate was assaulted by two other inmates in NCI's recreation yard. Def. 56.1 St. ¶ 28 [Rec. Doc. 54-29, at 5]. Butkiewicus investigated the incident and helped prepare an incident report package. Id. ¶¶ 29-30; see June 3, 2008 Connecticut DOC Incident Report Package ("Incident Report Package") [Rec. Doc. 54-7]. Using the information obtained during the investigation—some of which Butkiewicus attests was obtained from confidential informants at NCI—Butkiewicus concluded that Plaintiff had orchestrated the assault on the inmate in the recreation yard. Def. 56.1 St. ¶¶ 31-32 [Rec. Doc. 54-29, at 5]. Plaintiff attests that he was summoned to Butkiewicus' office on June 4, at which time Butkiewicus "demanded" that Plaintiff give him information about the June 3 assault, including the names of the perpetrators. Dorlette Aff. ¶ 5 [Rec. Doc. 62-6, at 11]. Plaintiff claims that he told Butkiewicus that he "had no knowledge as to the facts of the alleged fight," that any fight that had occurred was "none of [Plaintiff's] business," and that he was "not a snitch." Id. Plaintiff maintains that these responses greatly upset Butkiewicus, who told Plaintiff that he would "pay the cost" for his unwillingness to cooperate and for his back-talking by being transferred to administrative segregation. Id. [Rec. Doc. 62-6, at 11-12]. Plaintiff also claims that Butkiewicus badgered him for "snitching" to Warden McGill about the series of confrontations the pair had during the past month. Id. OnJune 4, 2008, Plaintiff was transferred from the close custody unit to NCI's administrative segregation program. Id. ¶ 7 [Rec. Doc. 62-6, at 13].
According to Connecticut's prison regulations, administrative segregation is for inmates "whose behavior or management factors pose a threat to the security of the facility or a risk to the safety of staff or other inmates," and is resorted to if the "inmate can no longer be safely managed in general population." Connecticut DOC Administrative Directive ("Admin. Directive") 9.4, § 3(B) [Rec. Doc. 54-11, at 2]. Once placed in administrative segregation, an inmate must successfully complete three separate phases by complying with all disciplinary and programming requirements before becoming eligible for removal from the program. Salius Aff. ¶¶ 13-14 [Rec. Doc. 54-20, at 4]. Progression through the phases "depends upon the inmate's behavior": if the inmate "remains free of any additional disciplinary issues and shows initiative in completing the program," he can advance through the phases and complete the program "in approximately one year." Id. ¶ 17. "Conversely, inmates who continue to accumulate disciplinary reports, who refuse to cooperate with programming, or who otherwise continue to present management issues due to their poor behavior" will not progress as quickly and are in danger of being "regressed back to phase one, if warranted." Id. ¶ 18. While confined in administrative segregation, inmates are subject to a broad range of pre-set provisions that regulate searches of their cells, security checks, their freedom of movement, work assignments, recreation, personal property, visitation rights, telephone and television usage, and their receipt of mail, among other aspects of their daily life. See Admin. Directive 9.4, Attachments A/1-A/4 [Rec. Doc. 54-11, at 27-30].
The authorization of an inmate's confinement to administrative segregation is "at the discretion of the [DOC's] Director of Offender Classification and Population Management." Id.§ 12 [Rec. Doc. 54-11, at 8]. Directive 9.4 requires that prior to authorization for phase one of administrative segregation, an inmate shall receive "notice and a hearing" that comply with the specific procedures outlined in § 12 of the Directive. Id.; see id. §§ 12(A), 12(B) [Rec. Doc. 54-11, at 8-9] (outlining the notice and hearing procedures). Following the hearing, the hearing officer is to provide a written recommendation that includes the information he relied upon and the rationale behind his recommendation. Id. § 12(C) [Rec. Doc. 54-11, at 9]. The Director of Offender Classification and Population Management makes the final decision authorizing an inmate's confinement to the DOC's administrative segregation program. Id. § 12(D).
After Plaintiff's transfer on June 4, 2008, NCI officials initiated the procedures outlined by § 12 of Directive 9.4 to determine whether Plaintiff should be formally authorized for placement into the administrative segregation program. On July 3, a hearing was conducted in front of defendant Hearing Officer Clapp. Dorlette Aff. ¶ 11 [Rec. Doc. 62-7, at 3]; Def. 56.1 St. ¶ 48 [Rec. Doc. 54-29, at 8]. Following the hearing, Clapp recommended Plaintiff be placed on administrative segregation status. Def. 56.1 St. ¶ 52 [Rec. Doc. 54-29, at 8].1 On July 8, defendant Levesque, DOC's Director of Offender Classification and Population Management, formally authorized Plaintiff's placement in administrative segregation. Id. ¶ 54; see 2008 Hearing Package [Rec. Doc. 54-8, at 4, 9-10]. Plaintiff remained in administrative segregation until December 5, 2008, at which time he was discharged from the custody of the DOC. Dorlette Aff. ¶ 17 [Rec. Doc. 62-7, at 11]; Def. 56.1 St. ¶ 58 [Rec. Doc. 54-29, at 9]. At that time,Plaintiff had not progressed beyond phase one of the program. Def. 56.1 St. ¶ 58 [Rec. Doc. 54-29, at 9].
On December 24, 2008, Plaintiff was arrested and returned to DOC custody. Dorlette Aff. ¶ 18 [Rec. Doc. 62-7, at 11]. Plaintiff was housed at Bridgeport Correctional Center (hereinafter "BCC") for six days until he was transferred back to administrative segregation at NCI on December 30, 2008. Id.; Salius Aff. ¶¶ 35-36 [Rec. Doc. 54-20, at 7-8]...
To continue reading
Request your trial