Michael D. Pires, Sr. v. Colleen Gallagher, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut conducted an initial review of Michael D. Pires, Sr.'s amended 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint concerning alleged exposure to Hepatitis C and unsanitary cell-toilet conditions. The court permitted Eighth Amendment claims to proceed against Colleen Gallagher, Jennifer Sanchez, Acting Warden Oles, and Acting Warden Perez regarding the risk of Hepatitis C exposure, and against Gallagher regarding the toilet conditions. The court denied Pires's motion to amend without prejudice and directed service of the amended complaint.

Holdings

1. For purposes of initial review, the amended complaint plausibly alleged Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claims against Gallagher and Sanchez based on their alleged failure to mitigate a serious risk that Pires would contract Hepatitis C from his cellmate, and against Oles and Perez based on allegations supporting an inference that they knew of the risk through grievances and failed to take remedial action.
2. For purposes of initial review, the amended complaint plausibly alleged an Eighth Amendment damages claim against Gallagher based on deliberate indifference to the unsanitary condition of the cell toilet, but did not allege sufficient facts against the other defendants regarding the toilet.
3. A plaintiff seeking damages under § 1983 must allege each defendant's personal involvement in the alleged constitutional violation, including when the defendant is a supervisory official.
4. The motion to amend was denied without prejudice because it did not include a proposed second amended complaint and did not add allegations supporting the deliberate-medical-indifference claim.
5. To the extent Pires sought monetary damages against the state-employee defendants in their official capacities, those claims were barred by the Eleventh Amendment; the court construed the amended complaint as asserting individual-capacity claims only.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the amended complaint plausibly alleged that Gallagher, Sanchez, Oles, and Perez were deliberately indifferent under the Eighth Amendment to a serious risk that Pires would contract Hepatitis C from his cellmate.
2. Whether the amended complaint plausibly alleged that Gallagher was deliberately indifferent under the Eighth Amendment to objectively unsanitary conditions caused by the cell toilet.
3. Whether Pires's motion to amend should be granted when it did not include a proposed second amended complaint or allegations supporting the deliberate-medical-indifference claim.
4. Whether claims for monetary damages against the defendants in their official capacities were barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Disposition

other