Ticey Hayes v. Behm, et al.

Summary

In this initial review order, the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut evaluates pro se plaintiff Ticey Hayes’s claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 arising from his designation in the prison Security Risk Group Program and assaults by other inmates. The court permits certain First Amendment retaliation, Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference, and Fourteenth Amendment due-process claims to proceed against specified defendants in their individual capacities, while dismissing other claims and official-capacity claims for monetary or injunctive relief.

Holdings

1. The complaint plausibly stated a First Amendment retaliation claim against Behm because Hayes alleged that, after filing the lawsuit, Behm made comments about inmates waiting to assault him and Hayes was placed in a unit where he could again be assaulted.
2. The complaint plausibly stated Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference-to-safety claims against Behm, Cyr, Reyes, Borkowski, Concepcion, Papoosha, and Warden Guadarrama, but not against Reis.
3. The complaint plausibly stated procedural due process claims against Borkowski and Reyes based on the alleged SRG designation without reliable supporting evidence.
4. The Fourteenth Amendment due process claims against Papoosha and Reis could not proceed.
5. Official-capacity claims for monetary damages were dismissed as barred by the Eleventh Amendment.
6. Hayes's official-capacity claims for injunctive and declaratory relief were dismissed.
7. The motion to appoint counsel was denied without prejudice.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the amended complaint plausibly stated a First Amendment retaliation claim.
2. Whether the amended complaint plausibly stated an Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference-to-safety claim against the correctional defendants.
3. Whether the amended complaint plausibly stated Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claims arising from SRG classification and protective-custody placement.
4. Whether official-capacity claims for damages and prospective injunctive or declaratory relief could proceed.
5. Whether counsel should be appointed for the pro se plaintiff.

Disposition

other