James Harnage v. Colleen Gallagher, et al.

Summary

This Initial Review Order addresses James Harnage’s 43-count prisoner civil rights complaint against officials of the Connecticut Department of Correction. The court permits claims concerning allegedly excessive black-box restraints, related conditions of confinement, and ADA and Rehabilitation Act accommodations involving restraints and access to a typewriter to proceed against specified defendants. The court dismisses the remaining claims without prejudice, including claims severed for misjoinder under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21.

Holdings

1. A prisoner subject to the PLRA three-strikes rule may proceed in forma pauperis when the complaint plausibly alleges an imminent danger of serious physical injury that has a nexus to the claims asserted. Harnage could proceed because the complaint alleged that black-box restraints were causing progressive injury and extreme pain to his dominant hand.
2. Claims concerning black-box restraints, related conditions of confinement, retaliation for seeking redress for restraint-related harm, disability accommodations, and access to courts through those accommodations were sufficiently related to be joined. Claims concerning photographs, confidential calls, cell lockouts, and personal rugs were unrelated and were severed and dismissed without prejudice under Rule 21.
3. The complaint plausibly stated Eighth Amendment excessive-force claims based on the alleged application of black-box restraints that aggravated Harnage's hand injury, caused extreme hyperextension and pain, and were allegedly imposed despite his protests and requests for less harmful restraints.
4. The complaint plausibly stated conditions-of-confinement claims because it alleged that black-box restraints posed a substantial risk of serious harm and that correctional officials knew of and disregarded that risk.
5. The Fourth Amendment claim based on use of black-box restraints was dismissed because, for a sentenced prisoner challenging deliberate use of force, the Eighth Amendment is the primary source of substantive protection.
6. The equal protection claim was dismissed because the complaint did not identify a sufficiently similar comparator at MacDougall and did not plausibly allege intentional differential treatment without a rational basis.
7. The retaliation claim was dismissed because the complaint did not plead nonconclusory facts supporting a causal connection between Harnage's grievances or legal activities and restrictions on typewriter or keyboard access.
8. The access-to-courts claims were dismissed because Harnage did not identify a nonfrivolous underlying legal claim or actual injury caused by restrictions on typewriter or tablet-keyboard access.
9. The complaint plausibly stated ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims based on the use of black-box restraints despite an approved restraint accommodation and on restrictions that allegedly made typewriter access ineffective. The claim concerning denial of a tablet keyboard was dismissed with leave to amend.
10. Individual-capacity ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims were dismissed, but official-capacity claims for damages under appropriate circumstances and prospective injunctive relief could proceed against the defendants associated with the surviving accommodation claims.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the complaint plausibly stated Eighth Amendment excessive-force claims based on the alleged use of excessively tight black-box restraints despite knowledge of Harnage's injuries.
2. Whether the complaint plausibly stated Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claims based on officials' continued use of black-box restraints after being informed of the resulting risk of harm.
3. Whether claims arising from black-box restraints, related accommodations, and access to a typewriter were properly joined under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 18 and 20, and whether unrelated claims should be severed under Rule 21.
4. Whether the Prison Litigation Reform Act's imminent-danger exception permitted Harnage to proceed in forma pauperis despite the PLRA three-strikes rule.
5. Whether the alleged use of black-box restraints stated a Fourth Amendment seizure claim.
6. Whether the complaint stated a class-of-one Equal Protection claim based on Harnage's allegedly different treatment from prisoners at other facilities.
7. Whether the complaint stated a First Amendment retaliation claim based on alleged restrictions on typewriter access and tablet-keyboard purchases following grievances and legal activity.
8. Whether the complaint stated access-to-courts claims based on restrictions on typewriter and tablet-keyboard access.
9. Whether the complaint stated ADA and Rehabilitation Act reasonable-accommodation claims based on black-box restraints and restrictions on access to a typewriter.
10. Whether the ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims could proceed against defendants in their individual capacities or against state officials in their official capacities.

Disposition

other