Lusmat v. Papoosha
3:20-cv-01386
D. Conn.Jul 29, 2021Background
- Plaintiff Allen Lusmat, a pretrial detainee and former sentenced inmate, sues multiple Connecticut DOC officials under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986 for actions between 2015–2020 related to SRG (Security Risk Group) designation, discipline, and housing.
- DOC SRG program places suspected gang-affiliated prisoners into phased, restrictive confinement; Lusmat was designated/redesignated multiple times and challenged various disciplinary findings.
- Key incidents: April 2018 SRG disciplinary finding and punitive sanctions after a phone call; April 2019 readmission and placement into SRG phase one without a hearing; Feb 14, 2020 placement into a cell with a rival gang member that resulted in a fight allegedly orchestrated by officers; May 8, 2020 protest leading to mace exposure and placement in unsanitary, in-cell restraints; June 2020 administrative-segregation hearing held without his assigned advocate.
- Other allegations: denial of receipt of mailed book as censorship, restrictions on telephone access hindering bond, denial of permission to marry while in SRG, and inadequate medical follow-up for injuries from tight handcuffs and shoulder pain.
- Procedural posture: court conducted initial review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, dismissing some claims on limitations or pleading grounds and allowing specified claims to proceed against named defendants in their individual capacities.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Statute of limitations | Claims reach back to incidents before Sept 15, 2017 | Claims outside 3-year § 1983 limitations are time-barred | Court dismissed claims based on events before Sept 15, 2017 absent tolling |
| First Amendment retaliation (SRG designation/discipline) | Designation and tickets were retaliation for protected speech (phone/social media) | Use of speech as evidence of gang affiliation is permissible; not retaliation for speech itself | Retaliation claim dismissed; evidentiary use of speech is not per se retaliation |
| Deliberate indifference to safety (Feb 2020 fight) | Officers placed him with a rival and watched/failed to intervene, creating risk | Actions were security decisions; no liability without deliberate indifference | Claim allowed to proceed against Hebernowski, Salius, and Baez for failure to prevent/orchestrating the fight |
| Deliberate indifference to medical needs (tight cuffs/shoulder) | Tight double-locked cuffs caused bleeding and chronic shoulder pain without adequate follow-up | Medical staff examined him and scheduled follow-up; harms not shown sufficiently serious | Claim dismissed for failure to plead sufficiently serious injury or deliberate indifference |
| Procedural due process (April 2018 disciplinary; mixed sanctions) | Disciplinary hearing lacked access to transcripts and adequate investigation; sanctions affected credits/duration | Sanctions included loss of RREC impacting release date; challenge may attack duration | Court held claim implicates Heck; plaintiff must waive challenge to duration-affecting sanctions or claim is barred; gave plaintiff chance to elect waiver |
| Procedural due process (April 2019 SRG readmission) | Readmitted and placed in phase one without a hearing or opportunity to be heard | Placement justified by DOC SRG rules and evidence on social media | Claim allowed to proceed against SRG Coordinators Papoosha and White for lack of meaningful opportunity to be heard |
| Substantive due process (SRG conditions) | Phase one/two conditions were punitive, excessive, unrelated to security | Conditions are related to penological/security interests; plaintiff must show personal involvement | Substantive due process claim dismissed for failure to plead personal involvement of named defendants, though conditions alleged could be punitive generally |
| Procedural due process (June 2020 admin hearing) | Hearing held without plaintiff meeting his appointed advocate Worilds | Defendants argue hearing was proper and advocate absence not harmful | Procedural due process claim allowed to proceed against Tugie and Riccio for holding hearing despite absence of advocate |
| False disciplinary report (Jan 2020) | Officer Laprey and Papoosha issued false report causing segregation | Charges were dismissed before hearing; no constitutional immunity for false accusations? | Claim dismissed: inmates have no absolute immunity from false accusations but plaintiff failed to state a viable claim given dismissal and short segregation period |
| Denial of book (First Amendment) | DOC rejected a mailed book as having SRG affiliation though it concerned an unaffiliated religious group | DOC contends restriction is penologically justified to prevent SRG material | First Amendment claim allowed to proceed against Laprey, Papoosha, and Bowles (plausible lack of legitimate penological basis) |
| Unsanitary conditions (May 8, 2020) | After pepper-spray protest, plaintiff left in cell with feces/vomit for ~15 hours and denied ability to wash mace off | Defendants may assert security or temporary exigency justification | Claim allowed to proceed against Lieutenant Medina for unsanitary conditions and denial of hygiene/treatment |
| Denial of marriage | DOC officials refused permission to marry while in SRG program | DOC cites SRG rules barring marriages for those in SRG or with recent tickets | Claim allowed to proceed against Warden Mudano and Captain Chevalier for alleged infringement of marital right |
| 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985 & 1986 conspiracy claims | Defendants conspired to deprive rights | Defendants are DOC employees; intracorporate conspiracy doctrine bars such claims | Claims dismissed under intracorporate conspiracy rule and because § 1986 depends on § 1985 predicate |
| Official-capacity claims / declaratory relief | Plaintiff sues officials in official capacities for damages and declaration | Eleventh Amendment bars damages against state officials in official capacity; declaratory relief limited | Official-capacity damages and retrospective declaratory relief dismissed as barred by sovereign immunity |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard; plausibility required)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading standard for plausibility)
- Darnell v. Pineiro, 849 F.3d 17 (2d Cir. 2017) (pretrial detainee deliberate-indifference standard under Fourteenth Amendment)
- Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995) (liberty interest / atypical and significant hardship analysis for sentenced prisoners)
- Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974) (due process rights in prison disciplinary hearings)
- Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979) (limits on punishing pretrial detainees; due process protection from punishment)
- Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) (favorable-termination rule for § 1983 claims that would imply invalidity of conviction/sentence)
- Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) (prison regulation First Amendment test: reasonable relation to penological interests)
- Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 U.S. 476 (1993) (speech may be used as evidence of criminal intent; does not automatically trigger First Amendment protection against evidentiary use)
- Almighty Supreme Born Allah v. Milling, 876 F.3d 48 (2d Cir. 2017) (pretrial detainee placed in administrative segregation without individualized consideration; substantive due process limits)
- Tangreti v. Bachmann, 983 F.3d 609 (2d Cir. 2020) (no special supervisory-liability rule; individual action required for § 1983 liability)