Opinion
3:22-cv-1076 (JAM)
04-27-2023
ASHAUD PUGH, Plaintiff, v. MANSON YOUTH INSTITUTION, Defendant.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915A
Jeffrey Alker Meyer, United States District Judge
Plaintiff Ashaud Pugh has filed a complaint pro se and in forma pauperis against Manson Youth Institution. Based on my initial review of the complaint, it is apparent that the complaint must be dismissed for failure to state a plausible claim for relief against the Manson Youth Institution. Accordingly, I will dismiss the complaint without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
Background
Pugh alleges that while he was incarcerated at Manson Youth Institution he was “jumped/assaulted” by three inmates in November 2019. After this incident, he told the deputy warden that the reason for the assault was that because “2 of the inmates had a relationship with the victims in my case and it was not over at all.” Pugh was eventually transferred to other facilities where he was assaulted again by two of the inmates who had assaulted him at Manson Youth Institution. He claims that “[i]f an assault by one inmate against another was the result of deliberate indifference on the part of prison staff, the proper remedy would be a civil rights suit pursuant to a federal statute 42 U.S.C. §1983.” Pugh seeks money damages of $100,000 and a waiver of his probation following service of his sentence.
Doc. #1 at 3.
Id. at 3.
Id. at 3-4.
Id. at 2.
Id. at 9.
Discussion
Congress by law requires that a federal court conduct an initial review of a prisoner's civil complaint against a governmental entity or governmental actors and “identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint-(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). If the prisoner is proceeding pro se, the allegations of the complaint must be read liberally to raise the strongest arguments they suggest. See Meadows v. United Servs., Inc., 963 F.3d 240, 243 (2d Cir. 2020) (per curiam). Still, even a pro se complaint may not survive dismissal if its factual allegations do not establish plausible grounds for relief. Ibid.
Unless otherwise indicated, this order omits internal quotation marks, alterations, citations, and footnotes in text quoted from court decisions.
Pugh has named a single defendant: Manson Youth Institution. But it is well-established that a correctional institution is not a “person” that is subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See, e.g., Galasso v. New Haven Corr. Ctr., 2023 WL 2457582 (D. Conn. 2023); El-Massri v. New Haven Corr. Ctr., 2018 WL 4604308, at *4 (D. Conn. 2018). Accordingly, the complaint is subject to dismissal for failure to state a plausible claim for relief against the Manson Youth Institution.
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, the Court DISMISSES the complaint without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). The Clerk of Court shall close this case.
If Pugh has good faith grounds to allege a claim against a defendant who is a “person” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, he may file an amended complaint by May 26, 2023, and the Court will then re-open the case to conduct another initial review of any timely amended complaint.
It is so ordered.