Summary
This Initial Review Order from the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut addresses a pro se prisoner’s § 1983 complaint alleging constitutional violations related to prison disciplinary proceedings and Security Risk Group classification. The court conducts a mandatory review under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, permitting claims for First Amendment retaliation and procedural due process to proceed while dismissing equal protection and deliberate indifference claims for failing to state plausible constitutional violations. The order outlines the factual background regarding the plaintiff's disciplinary ticket, hearing, and subsequent placement in restrictive housing and the SRG program.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether plaintiff may proceed on his First Amendment retaliation claim against named correctional officials.
- Whether plaintiff may proceed on Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claims in individual capacity against certain officials.
- Whether plaintiff may proceed on Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claims in official capacity against District Administrator Washington.
- Whether the remaining claims are dismissed without prejudice.
Holdings
- Plaintiff may proceed on his First Amendment retaliation claim against Correctional Officers Lapointe, Rivera, DHO Doe, SRG Coordinator Papoosha, and District Administrator Washington.
- Plaintiff may proceed on procedural due process claims in his individual capacity against Officer Lapointe, DHO Doe, and District Administrator Washington.
- Plaintiff may proceed on procedural due process claims in official capacity against District Administrator Washington.
- All other claims are dismissed without prejudice.
Key quotations
“Mitchell may proceed on his (1) First Amendment retaliation claim against Defendants Correctional Officer Lapointe, Correctional Officer Rivera, DHO Doe, SRG Coordinator Papoosha and District Administrator Washington; and (2) Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claims against Defendants Officer Lapointe, DHO Doe, and District Administrator Washington in their individual capacities, and against Defendant District Administrator Washington in his official capacity.”
Factual background
Christon Mitchell, a prisoner at Cheshire Correctional Institution, alleges that correctional officials charged him with Security Risk Group affiliation, failed to provide required procedural safeguards, placed him in restrictive housing, and subjected him to harsh conditions. He also alleges strip searches and improper access to his social media messages.
Procedural history
Plaintiff filed a pro se §1983 complaint; the court issued an Initial Review Order permitting the First Amendment claim and dismissing other claims without prejudice; plaintiff filed an amended complaint; this order addresses the amended complaint.