Free Motion for Summary Judgment - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:00-cv-00720-JCH

Document 84-3

Filed 05/12/2006

Page 1 of 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT PRISONER CIVIL NO. 3:00CV720(JCH)

WILLIAM CONNOLLY v. DAVID COSGROVE, ET AL

: : : : :

MAY 11, 2006

THE DEFENDANTS' LOCAL RULE 56(A)1 STATEMENT OF FACTS Pursuant to Local Rule 56(a)1, the defendants submit this statement of facts as to which they contend there are no genuine issues of material fact in dispute. 1. The plaintiff is an inmate confined to the custody of the Connecticut

Department of Correction ("DOC"). At the time of the alleged incidents which give rise to the claims in his complaint, the plaintiff was incarcerated at McDougal Correctional Institution, ("MCI") and Greensville Correctional Institution. Exhibit A1, para. 4. He was incarcerated at MCI from March 27, 1995, to February 9, 2001, when he was transferred to Cheshire Correctional Institution ("Cheshire"). Then on February 14, 2001, he was transferred to Greensville Correctional Institution, ("Greensville"), in Greensville, Virginia, until August 22, 2004, when he was returned to MCI. He is currently housed at Enfield Correctional Institution. Exhibit B2. 2. Defendant Mark Strange was the Warden at MCI at the time of the acts

alleged in the plaintiff's complaint. Exhibit A, para. 15, Exhibit C3, response 4. 3. Defendant John O'Neil was a counselor supervisor at MCI at the time of

the incidents alleged in the plaintiff's complaint. Exhibit A, para. 16; Exhibit D4, resp. 7.

1 2 3

Exhibit A: Plaintiff's amended complaint, ("complaint"), dated November 17, 2003. Exhibit B: Plaintiff's RT sheet ("movement sheet"). Exhibit C: Admissions of Defendant Mark Strange..

Case 3:00-cv-00720-JCH

Document 84-3

Filed 05/12/2006

Page 2 of 6

4.

Defendant Christine Whidden was a correctional officer major at MCI at

the time of the incidents alleged in the plaintiff's complaint. Exhibit A, para. 17; Exhibit E5, resp. 5. 5. Defendant Jamie Serrano was a correctional officer at MCI at the time of

the incidents alleged in the plaintiff's complaint. Exhibit A, para. 18; Exhibit F6, resp. 8. 6. Defendant Virginia Golemba was a counselor supervisor and classification

expert at MCI at the time of the incidents alleged in the plaintiff's complaint. Exhibit A, para. 7; Exhibit G7, resp. 6. 7. Defendant John Cupka was the Connecticut On-site Monitor at

Greensville Correctional Center ("Greensville") at the time of the incidents alleged in the plaintiff's complaint. Exhibit A, para. 19; Exhibit H8, resp. 9. 8. During the time that the plaintiff was at MCI, Defendant O'Neil never

reviewed any of the plaintiff's legal. mail outside the presence of the plaintiff. Exhibit D, response 7(i); Exhibit J, §10.7(4). 9. At no time during the plaintiff's incarceration were any of the defendants

aware of any politically motivated vendetta against the plaintiff, or that he was . Exhibit C, response 4(a); Exhibit D, response (h); Exhibit E, response 5(e); Exhibit F, response 8(a); Exhibit G, response 6(b); Exhibit H, response 9(a) & (b). 10. At no time during his employment at MCI, was defendant John O'Neil

authorized to, or did he on his own, hinder the plaintiff's access to court, confiscate, rewrite, or fail to produce for the plaintiff any Administrative Directives, force the law
4 5 6 7 8

Exhibit D: Exhibit E: Exhibit F: Exhibit G: Exhibit H:

Admissions of John O'Neil. Admissions of Christine Whidden. Admissions of Jamie Serrano. Admissions of Vriginia Golemba. Admissions of John Cupka.

Case 3:00-cv-00720-JCH

Document 84-3

Filed 05/12/2006

Page 3 of 6

librarian into retirement, remove the copier, computer, or case-base software from the library. Exhibit D, responses 7(a) through (g). Nor did Defendant Strange. Exhibit C, responses 4(e) & (h). 11. Defendant O'Neil does not recall the plaintiff as having a job as a library

assistant while O'Neil was assigned to MCI. Exhibit D, response 7(h) & (j). Though inmates are not entitled to a prison job. Exhibit C, response 4(j). 12. As Warden of MCI, Defendant Strange was not aware of any occasion

when persons on the plaintiff's visiting list were delayed or prevented from visiting the plaintiff at MCI. Exhibit C, response 4(l). He also was not aware of any subordinates examining the plaintiff's legal files in his cell in the absence of the plaintiff, unless it was during the course of a cell search when legal materials may be previewed to confirm that they are not contraband disguised as legal materials. Exhibit C, response 4(g). 13. Defendant Serrano may have filmed the plaintiff pursuant to DOC

procedures, but does not recall doing so. However, if he did film the plaintiff, the tape would have been marked, secured and stored as evidence. Exhibit F, response 8(b); Exhibit I9. But at no time was the film used for recreational purposes. Exhibit F, response 8(c). 14. The duties of John Cupka did not involve the handling or routing of the

incoming or outgoing mail at Greensville. In accordance with the rules and regulations at Greensville, all inmate mail was routed through the mailroom at the facility where it was sorted and then given to the respective Unit Managers for distribution to the inmates.

9

Exhibit I: Department of Correction Administrative Directive 6.9: Control of Contraband and Physical Evidence

Case 3:00-cv-00720-JCH

Document 84-3

Filed 05/12/2006

Page 4 of 6

Exhibit J10, para. 5; Exhibit K11, §10.7(4). Defendant Cupka did not cause the plaintiff's Amended Complaint, dated April 14, 2003, or any mail of his to be intercepted, disappear, or delayed. Exhibit H, responses (m), (p), (q) & (r). 15. Based upon actions and/or statements of the plaintiff, John Cupka referred

the plaintiff to the Greensville mental health unit, but did not state that the plaintiff was "delusional", nor did Cupka authorize "chemical interrogation" of the plaintiff. Exhibit H, responses 9(o) & (n). Nor did Defendant Strange. Exhibit C, response 4(k). 16. John Cupka assisted the Connecticut inmates to obtain a PIN number

which enabled them to place free of charge telephone calls to Connecticut Inmate Legal Services. The use of the PIN number was limited to the use of only authorized calls. If an inmate used the PIN to call another legal service, such as Virginia Legal Aid, they were instructed that this was not permitted and the PIN number rules were explained to the inmate. Exhibit J, para. 6; Exhibit K, § 10.7(5). But Cupka never removed numbers from the plaintiff's PIN list. Exhibit H, response 9(g). 17. Inmates were permitted to hold a job while at Greensville if they met

certain requirements set forth by classification officials. John Cupka was not involved in classification decisions and had no input into whether the plaintiff obtained or held a job. Exhibit J, para. 7. Inmates are not entitled to a prison job or prison assignment. Exhibit C, response 4(j). If an inmate did not receive good time credit, it was because he was not working the number of days required to earn the credit. Exhibit J, para. 7. But Cupka never deprived the plaintiff of any Job Credit Time to which he was entitled. Exhibit H, response 9(i).

10

Exhibit J: Affidavit of John Cupka. 10 Exhibit K: Department of Correction Administrative Directive §10.7(4): Inmate Correspondence

Case 3:00-cv-00720-JCH

Document 84-3

Filed 05/12/2006

Page 5 of 6

18.

John Cupka never disclosed confidential information about the plaintiff to

other inmates or staff, nor proximately caused cellmates of the plaintiff to provoke altercations with the plaintiff or to take his property. Exhibit H, response 9(k) & (l). 19. On February 1, 1998, the plaintiff started receiving statutory good time

credits at the enhanced rate of 12 days a month versus the 10 days that he was earning previously. Exhibit L12, para. 7. 20. On November 13, 2001, he received 1602 days of court ordered jail credit,

which was from the time he was confined at Whiting Forensic Hospital (4/21/90 ­ 9/8/94). Exhibit L, para. 8. 21. Based upon the additional good time credits that the court ordered, he was

eligible for an adjustment of 68 days of statutory good time credits because the additional credits allowed his sentence to start earning the enhanced good time sooner than February 1, 1998. Exhibit L, para. 9. 22. This 7-Day Job Credit has been earned periodically throughout his

sentence, however he was disputing the 7-Day Job Credit while he was held at Greensville under a compact custody agreement. The Interstate Compact Office researched his claim and granted him approximately 149 days of confirmed 7-Day Job Credit while housed out of state. This brought his total earned to 338 days. To this day, he maintains a 7-Day Job and continues to earn a reduction towards the sentence each month. Exhibit L, para. 10 23. The plaintiff's maximum release date is currently October 9, 2022 and his

estimated release date is February, 2018. Exhibit L, para. 11

12

Exhibit L: Affidavit of DOC employee Robin Nedjoika.

Case 3:00-cv-00720-JCH

Document 84-3

Filed 05/12/2006

Page 6 of 6

DEFENDANTS DAVID COSGROVE, ET AL. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL ATTORNEY GENERAL

BY:

__/s/_________________________ Robert B. Fiske, III Assistant Attorney General 110 Sherman Street Hartford, CT 06105 Federal Bar #ct17831 E-Mail: [email protected] Tel.: (860) 808-5450 Fax: (860) 808-5591

CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was mailed to the following on this, the 11th day of May, 2006, to: Mr. William Connelly, #189009 Enfield, CI. 289 Shaker Road, PO Box 1500 Suffield, CT 06080

__/s/_________________________ Robert B. Fiske, III Assistant Attorney General