Gawlik v. Semple
| Docket Number | 3:20-cv-564 (SRU) |
| Decision Date | 27 September 2021 |
| Parties | JAN M. GAWLIK, Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER SCOTT SEMPLE, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut |
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER
Jan M Gawlik (“Gawlik”), proceeding pro se brings this action under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985 the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (“RLUIPA”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1, and three federal criminal statutes against Commissioner Scott Semple, District Administrator Angel Quiros, Director of Religious Services Reverend Dr. Charles Williams, Warden Scott Erfe, Lieutenant Czeremcha, Captain Watson Correctional Officers Smith, Buckland, Brown, Parker and Cunningham, Nurse Chaniece Parker, Connecticut State Trooper Mejias, Lieutenant John B. Ceruti and Detective Edmund Vayan, and Commissioner of the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection James Rovella. Gawlik additionally requests that I exercise supplemental jurisdiction over various state-law claims.
For the reasons set forth below, the complaint is dismissed in part.
Under section 1915A of Title 28 of the United States Code, a district court must review civil complaints filed by incarcerated individuals and dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous, 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. § 1915A. That standard of review “applies to all civil complaints brought by prisoners against governmental officials or entities regardless of whether the prisoner has paid a filing fee.” Carr v. Dvorin, 171 F.3d 115, 116 (2d Cir. 1999))
Although detailed allegations are not required in order to survive initial review, a complaint must include sufficient facts to afford the defendants fair notice of the claims and the grounds upon which they are based and to demonstrate a plausible right to relief. Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-56 (2007). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Nevertheless, it is well-established that “the submissions of a pro se litigant must be construed liberally and interpreted to raise the strongest arguments that they suggest.” Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474 (2d Cir. 2006) (cleaned up); see also Tracy v. Freshwater, 623 F.3d 90, 101-02 (2d Cir. 2010) (discussing special rules of solicitude for pro se litigants).
On March 26, 2018, Lieutenant Czeremcha called Gawlik to his office. Id. ¶ 21. When Gawlik reported to the office, he found six officers waiting outside. Id. Laughing, the officers told Gawlik that he was being sent to Administrative Segregation. Id. at ¶ 22. Gawlik asked Lieutenant Czeremcha why he was being sent to Administrative Segregation, but Lieutenant Czeremcha refused to answer. Id. at ¶ 23. One of the officers began videotaping Gawlik. Id.
Lieutenant Czeremcha told Gawlik to put his hands behind his back so that the other officers could handcuff him. Id. at ¶ 24. Gawlik complied with the order. Id. Officer Buckland pulled out handcuffs and handcuffed Gawlik's wrists so tightly that blood circulation was cut off. Id. at ¶ 25. Gawlik explained to Officer Buckland that the cuffs were so tight that they were cutting off circulation to his wrists and asked him to loosen the cuffs, but Officer Buckland ignored him. Id. at ¶ 26. Gawlik again asked Lieutenant Czeremcha why he was being taken to Administrative Segregation. Id at ¶ 27. Lieutenant Czeremcha replied that Gawlik had improperly “circumvented” the mail system by sending mail on behalf of another inmate. Id. Gawlik admitted that he had sent mail on behalf of another inmate who could not afford to send mail to his family but told Lieutenant Czeremcha that there was no rule in the Department of Corrections Administrative Directives (“Administrative Directives”) prohibiting him from sending mail on behalf of someone else. Id.
Officer Brown then went behind Gawlik, and, despite the very tight handcuffs, used the wrist-lock position to restrain Gawlik's wrists. Id. at ¶ 28. Officer Buckland went on Gawlik's left side, and, using the wrist-lock escort position, twisted Gawlik's left hand upward so hard that Gawlik felt that his wrist was going to break. Id. at ¶ 29. Gawlik was in so much pain that he started to worry he might pass out. Id. at ¶ 30. Gawlik told Lieutenant Czeremcha his wrist felt like it might break and that Officer Buckland was purposely hurting him. Id. at ¶ 31. Lieutenant Czeremcha, however, ignored him and directed Officers Smith, Buckland, Brown, Parker, and Cunningham to escort him to Administrative Segregation. Id. at ¶¶ 31-32.
Gawlik continued to plead with Lieutenant Czeremcha to direct Officer Buckland to stop twisting his wrist because he was experiencing extreme pain. Id. at ¶ 33. Lieutenant Czeremcha turned to the camera held by one of the other officers and stated, “for the record, there is no abnormal force used against plaintiff Gawlik.” Id. The officers continued filming Gawlik until they arrived at the Administrative Segregation unit. Id. at ¶ 34.
When Gawlik arrived at the unit, the officers released his wrists and uncuffed him. Id. at ¶ 35. Gawlik looked at his hands and noticed that the top layer of skin had been peeled away by the handcuffs, and that his entire right hand had turned blue from lack of circulation. Id. at ¶ 36.
Lieutenant Czeremcha then ordered Gawlik to remove his clothes so that the defendants could conduct a strip search prior to admitting him into Administrative Segregation. Id. ¶ 37. Gawlik removed his clothes but kept on his rosary and crucifix, which he uses to pray. Id. ¶¶ 3840. Lieutenant Czeremcha ordered Gawlik to remove his rosary and crucifix. Id. ¶ 39. Gawlik refused, explaining to Lieutenant Czeremcha that the rosary and crucifix presented no safety or security issue. Id. at ¶ 40. Lieutenant Czeremcha again ordered Gawlik to hand over his rosary and crucifix, this time pulling out a pepper spray can. Id. at ¶ 41. Afraid he would be pepper sprayed or beaten if he did not comply with the order, Gawlik removed his crucifix and rosary and handed them to Lieutenant Czeremcha. Id. ¶ 42. Gawlik was then handcuffed again, despite his complaints that his wrist was injured. Id. at ¶ 46.
After Gawlik was placed into a cell in Administrative Segregation, Nurse Parker examined him. Id. at ¶ 47. Although Gawlik showed her his wrist, which was injured, blue from lack of blood circulation and scratched from the handcuffs, Nurse Parker noted on her examination report that Gawlik had no visible injuries. Id. at ¶¶ 47-48; see also Pl.'s Ex. C, Doc. No. 1 at 57. After Nurse Parker left, Gawlik informed the officers performing safety checks that he had been injured by Officer Buckland and needed medical treatment for his wrist. Id. at ¶ 49. After nearly two hours of ignoring Gawlik's pleas, the officers finally called the medical department to examine Gawlik. Id. at ¶ 50. Nurse Parker returned to evaluate Gawlik's injuries and examined his wrists. Id. at ¶ 51. After examining him, she filled out a sick call report in which she noted that Gawlik's wrists were discolored, tender and swollen as a result of handcuffs that had been applied too tightly. Id. at ¶ 53; see also Pl.'s Ex. D, Doc. No. 1 at 59. She prescribed Gawlik Motrin for the pain but refused to take pictures of the injuries. Id. at ¶¶ 53-54.
That evening, Gawlik received a disciplinary report charging him with security tampering, a Class A offense, for engaging in the unauthorized or fraudulent use of the mail system. See Pl.'s Ex. A, Doc. No 1 at 43. Gawlik pleaded guilty and received sanctions of seven days of punitive segregation, thirty days loss of commissary privileges, thirty days loss of mail privileges, and forfeiture of fifteen days of Risk Reduction Earned Credit. Id. at 44.
On March 27, 2018, Gawlik told Captain Watson, the administrator that runs the Administrative Segregation unit, that his wrists had become increasingly swollen overnight and that he needed to see the nurse. Id. at ¶¶ 56-57. Captain Watson told him that he had already been seen the previous day and did not need to be examined by the nurse again. Id. at ¶ 58. Several hours later, Gawlik asked Captain Watson why his rosary and crucifix had been confiscated and explained that he needed them in order to pray. Id. ¶ 59. Captain Watson told Gawlik that he did not care about any religious articles and suggested that Gawlik write to the chaplain. Id. ¶ 60. Gawlik's rosary and crucifix were not returned to him during the seven days that he remained in Administrative Segregation. Id. at ¶ 61.
On March 28, 2018, [2] Gawlik asked Captain Watson to permit him to go outside for recreation. Id. ¶ 63. Captain Watson told Gawlik that no outdoor recreation was permitted in Administrative Segregation. Id. Gawlik was denied access to exercise or outdoor recreation during the seven days that he was held in Administrative Segregation. Id. at ¶ 65.
On April 12, 2018, Gawlik submitted an inmate request to Lieutenant Czeremcha alleging that the confiscation of his rosary and crucifix had violated Administrative Directive 6.10. Id. ¶¶ 95-96. On April 25, 2018 Lieutenant Czeremcha replied to Gawlik's request, stating that Gawlik's crucifix and rosary were confiscated because they were metal and could pose a threat to safety and security. Id. at ¶ 97; see also Pl.'s Ex. J, Doc. No. 1 at 77-78. Lieutenant Czeremcha further noted that Gawlik could have requested a review of the confiscation of his religious items...
To continue reading
Request your trial