Powell v. Cusimano
| Decision Date | 23 July 2004 |
| Docket Number | No. CIV.3:00CV1638(HBF).,CIV.3:00CV1638(HBF). |
| Citation | 326 F.Supp.2d 322 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut |
| Parties | Kenneth POWELL, v. Capt. John CUSIMANO, Lt. Edward Linares,<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL> C.O. Donald Figiela, C.O. Edward Heller, C.O. Brian Siwicki, C.O. Fred Derota, C.O. Scott Peterson, and Irene Carlon. |
Alan Rosner, Jennifer Vickery, Bridgeport, CT, for Plaintiff.
Steven R. Strom, Attorney General's Office, Hartford, CT, for Defendants.
BENCH RULING
Kenneth Powell, a former state prisoner, brings this civil rights action against eight employees2 of the Connecticut Department of Corrections ("DOC"), alleging violation of his rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment the United States Constitution and various state law claims.3 Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, punitive damages, treble damages under Conn. Gen.Stat. § 52-571c(b) and attorneys' fees and costs under Conn. Gen.Stat. § 52-571c(b) and 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
A bench trial was held on September 15 and 16, 2003. Edward Heller, Kenneth Powell, Fred DeRota, John Cusimano, Irene Carlon, Thomasena Vaughn and Edgardo Linares testified at trial. Testimony and evidence adduced at the hearing are summarized below as necessary to explain the Court's findings and conclusions.
Based on the credible testimony, the exhibits, and the entire record compiled during the trial, including a videotape of the subject incident [Def. Ex. J], the Court finds established the following facts which are relevant to this ruling.4
1. Plaintiff, Kenneth Powell, is a thirty-three (33) year old male who was formerly an inmate at Walker Reception and Special Management Unit ("Walker"), a facility run by the Connecticut Department of Corrections.
2. On November 20, 1998, plaintiff was sentenced on five different criminal convictions, including Larceny third degree, (Conn.Gen.Stat. § 53a-123), three counts of violation of probation, (Conn.Gen.Stat. § 53a-32) and one count of prostitution (Conn.Gen.Stat. § 53a-82). He was ordered to serve concurrent sentences for a total effective sentence of three years. [See Mittimuses, Ex. G; Doc. # 80 at 94].
3. Powell also had two prior felony drug convictions, one for possession of narcotics and one for sale of narcotics, [Doc. # 80 at 94], and twelve separate convictions for larceny, sixth degree. [Doc. # 80 at 95].
4. On November 23 and 24, 1998, Kenneth Powell was an inmate of the Connecticut Department of Corrections. [Stip.]. He was incarcerated at the Bridgeport Correctional Facility on November 23, then transferred to Walker on November 24, 1998. [Stip.].
5. On cross examination, in response to the question, Powell responded, [Doc. # 80 at 93].
6. Powell testified that he was very familiar with all aspects of rules, procedures and regulations of the Department of Corrections, as he had been incarcerated, as he said, at least "one or two times" over the years. [Doc. # 80 at 93, 157].
8. Powell was transferred from Bridgeport Correctional Center to Walker Reception and Special Management Unit ("RSMU") on November 24, 1998. [Doc. # 80 at 53, 137].
9. Plaintiff stated that he was not "too particularly sure" any of the defendants were present on his arrival at Walker on November 24, 1998. [Doc. # 80 at 139].
10. On November 24, 1998, the defendants were employed by the State of Connecticut and were assigned to Walker. [Stip.].
11. On November 24, 1998, Lieutenant Edgardo Linares was on duty at Walker during the second shift. Linares supervised defendant Corrections Officers Donald Figiela, Brian Siwicki, Fred DeRota and Scott Peterson on that shift. [Stip.]
12. On November 24, 1998, Nurse Irene Carlon was on duty at Walker during the second shift. [Stip.].
13. On November 24, 1998, Officer Fred DeRota was on duty in the segregation unit at Walker. [Doc. # 80 at 170]. As a segregation officer, he was responsible for maintaining a logbook of all the activities in the unit. Id.
14. On November 24, 1998, Captain John Cusimano was on duty at Walker. He was responsible for facility operations. [Doc. # 80 at 211, 221].
15. On November 24, 1998, Officer Edward Heller was assigned to the second shift as a property officer working in the property room of the Admitting and Processing ("A & P") area of Walker. He was responsible for the intake and inventory of inmate property. All inmate property was searched for contraband on intake. [Doc. # 80 at 6; Def. Ex. L].
16. At the time of his transfer to Walker, plaintiff was wearing artificial braided hair extensions woven into his own real hair. [Stip.; Pl.Ex. 14].
17. Mr. Powell knew that his fake hair extensions were contraband; indeed, he testified that he was "well aware of that." [Doc. # 80 at 136].
18. After arriving at Walker, Powell was escorted from the holding cell to the interview room for a medical intake interview performed by Nurse Carlon. [Doc. # 80 at 58; Pl.Ex. 29].
19. Powell was wearing artificial braided hair extensions and blue contact lenses upon his admission to Walker. [Doc. Def. Ex. C; Pl.Ex. 16].
20. Nurse Carlon testified that she received a direct order to check Powell's hair. [Doc. # 81 at 69].
21. Administrative Directive 6.10, Inmate Property, defines "contraband" as "[a]nything not authorized to be in an inmate's possession; used in an unauthorized or prohibited manner; or altered in any way." "Unauthorized property" is defined as "[p]roperty which is either not allowed by the terms of this Directive or is in excess quantity of property permitted by this Directive." "No inmate will be permitted to retain ay item which does not conform to the Inmate Property Matrix or is in excess of the quantities allowed in Section 16 of this Directive." [Def. Ex. Q].
22. Administrative Directive 9.5, Code of Penal Discipline, defines "contraband" as "[a]nything not authorized to be in any inmate's possession or anything used in an unauthorized or prohibited manner." [Def. Ex. R].
23. Powell's clinical record states for November 24, 1998, written by Nurse Carlon: [Def. Ex. B at 6; Doc. # 81 at 86-87].
24. Officer Heller was processing inmate property in the Property Cage when he heard loud voices coming from the Nurse's interview room, IP 22, where Nurse Carlon was conducting medical intake interviews. [Doc. # 80 at 11; Def. Ex. L]. Carlon called Heller into the room. [Doc. # 80 at 11, 37-38; Def. Ex. A at 08].
25. Officer Donald Figiela was working in the A & P area and also responded to the loud voices coming from the nurse's interview room. [Doc. # 80 at 8-9].
26. Heller testified that plaintiff's demeanor, raised voice and continued noncompliance with direct orders raised concerns in Heller's mind for Nurse Carlon's safety. [Doc. # 80 at 35-36].
27. Figiela gave Powell a direct order to remove his contraband hair braids and Powell refused in a threatening manner, stating he was not going to remove his hair braids and that the correction officers were not going to remove them either. [Doc. # 80 at 11, 29-30; Def. Ex. A at 22].
28. Nurse Carlon noted in her medical chart that Powell was argumentative and belligerent, refusing to remove his fake hair braids and his contact lenses. She called the shift supervisor, Capt. Cusimano, who directed Lt. Linares to respond to the nurse's office. [Def. Ex. A at 02; Def. Ex. B at 01, 06; Def. Ex. H at 330].
29. Heller testified that, after plaintiff refused Figiela's direct orders, Heller left the office and told Officers Siwicki and Peterson. [Doc. # 80 at 14]. Heller then returned to the interviewing office. [Doc. # 80 at 15].
30. Heller testified that Powell adamantly refused to remove his braids. [Doc. # 80 at 30; Def. Ex. A at 8]. At no time did Powell request a comb or indicate by body movement, gesture, or in any way that he was willing and cooperative to remove his hair braids. [Doc. # 80 at 34].
31. Lt. Linares responded to a radio call, arrived in the interview room, and was apprised of the situation by his staff. [Doc. # 81 at 113].
32. Upon his arrival, he was informed that Powell had refused a direct order from Nurse Carlon and Officer Figiela to remove the braids. [Doc. # 81 at 116-117].
33. Linares gave plaintiff a direct order to remove the braids. "When I gave Mr. Powell the direct order to remove his braids, he — his eyes opened up and he looked at me and said, `I'm not removing my braids, so you do what you have to do.' "[Doc. # 81 at 118-120, 130]. "It was like it was in the video, he was like arrogant towards the direction that I was giving him, like I was bothering him by asking him to do this." [Doc. # 130].
34. In response to the question, "You didn't want to investigate, since you...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Latouche v. Hammer
... ... Dec. 12, 2011) (alleged refusal to examine ... Plaintiff could support finding of deliberate indifference); ... cf. Powell v. Cusimano, 326 F.Supp.2d 322, 338-39 ... (D. Conn. 2004) (plaintiff was not denied medical care ... because evidence clearly showed he ... ...
-
Baggett v. Ashe
...their approach since courts have consistently upheld the use of video cameras to record searches. See, e.g., Powell v. Cusimano, 326 F.Supp.2d 322, 335 (D.Conn.2004). Second, Defendants say, they strived to ensure that the policy complied with the Constitution—for example, they hired an exp......
-
Baggett v. Ashe, C.A. No. 11–30223–MAP.
...their approach since courts have consistently upheld the use of video cameras to record searches. See, e.g., Powell v. Cusimano, 326 F.Supp.2d 322, 335 (D.Conn.2004). Second, Defendants say, they strived to ensure that the policy complied with the Constitution—for example, they hired an exp......
-
Leonard v. Nesmith
...indifference claim when the inmate is examined by medical staff and found to have no condition needing treatment. Powell v. Cusimano, 326 F. Supp. 2d 322, 339 (D. Conn. 2004). "To establish an unconstitutional denial of medical care that rises to the level of an Eighth Amendment violation, ......
-
Powell v. Cusimano.
...District Court CLAIMS Powell v. Cusimano, 326 F.Supp.2d 322 (D.Conn. 2004). A former state prisoner brought a civil rights action against eight employees of the state corrections department. The district court entered summary judgment in favor of the employees. The court held that a correct......
-
Powell v. Cusimano.
...District Court STRIP SEARCH BODY CAVITY SEARCH Powell v. Cusimano, 326 F.Supp.2d 322 (D.Conn. 2004). A former state prisoner brought a civil rights action against eight employees of the state corrections department. The district court entered summary judgment in favor of the employees. The ......