Opinion
No. CV 05 4000528
August 22, 2006
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
The pro se petitioner filed an amended petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus on August 25, 2005, in which he claims that his constitutional right to protection against cruel and unusual punishment under the eighth amendment to the United States constitution has been violated due to the respondent's failure to provide him with protection from other inmates. Specifically, the petitioner claims that when he is outside of his cell he is at risk of violent attacks because he is a sex offender and that the respondent is doing nothing to protect him. In the return, the respondent asserts that reasonable and appropriate measures to protect the petitioner have been employed and the petitioner cannot establish that he is being subjected to cruel and unusual punishment.
The matter came to trial on June 20, 2006, at which time the only testimony heard by the Court was from the petitioner. At the close of the petitioner's case, the respondent requested that the amended petition be dismissed based on the petitioner's failure to establish a prima facie case. For the reasons set forth more fully below, the Court finds that the petitioner has failed to make out a prima facie case and the amended petition is dismissed.
FINDINGS OF FACT
From the foregoing, the Court makes the following findings of fact.
1. The petitioner is confined to the custody of the Commissioner of Correction pursuant to a mittimus issued in docket number CR96 148366 for a violation of probation under General Statutes § 53a-32, for which the petitioner was sentenced to six years incarceration. The petitioner is also serving a sentence of twenty years, suspended after six years, with twenty years of probation pursuant to a mittimus issued in docket number CR04 192499 for a conviction of risk of injury to a child in violation of § 53-21(a)(2).
2. The petitioner is currently serving his sentence at Garner Correctional Institution.
3. At the habeas trial, the petitioner testified that because he is a sex offender he is at an increased risk of physical violence at the hands of other inmates. The petitioner stated that he currently has a single cell; however, during meal times and recreation he is out of his cell and among the general population where he is at risk of being assaulted.
4. The petitioner was in protective custody when he was transferred from Hartford Correctional Center to Garner on April 11, 2004. At Garner, he was placed in segregation, where he had no contact with any of the other inmates. The petitioner voluntarily signed himself out of protective custody, however, because he did not like the restricted environment of segregation.
5. The petitioner admitted that on four separate occasions during lock-down he banged his head against the wall of his cell to the point where stitches were required. He stated that he perpetrated this form of self-abuse in an effort to obtain recreation time.
6. The petitioner testified that during his time at Garner he has never been the victim of verbal abuse or physical attacks from other inmates.
DISCUSSION
The eighth amendment, which is binding on the states under "the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment to the United States constitution . . . prohibits detention in a manner that constitutes cruel and unusual punishment." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Fuller v. Commissioner of Correction, 75 Conn.App. 133, 136, 815 A.2d 208, cert. denied, 263 Conn. 926, 823 A.2d 1217 (2003). Under the eighth amendment, "prison officials must ensure that inmates receive adequate food, clothing, shelter, and medical care, and must take reasonable measures to guarantee the safety of the inmates . . ." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994). Furthermore, "prison officials have a duty . . . to protect prisoners from violence at the hands of other prisoners." Id., 833.
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." U.S. Const., amend. VIII.
"A prison official's deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of serious harm to an inmate violates the Eighth Amendment." Farmer v. Brennan, supra, 511 U.S. 828. In other words, to establish a cognizable claim for failure to protect under the Eighth Amendment, the petitioner must meet two requirements. First, "the alleged deprivation of adequate conditions must be objectively, sufficiently serious . . ." Fuller v. Commissioner of Correction, supra, 75 Conn.App. 136. Second, prison officials must have a subjective deliberate indifference to the petitioner's health or safety. Id., 137.
The respondent has moved to dismiss the amended habeas petition based on the petitioner's failure to establish a prima facie case. See Practice Book §§ 15-8 and 23-29. Here, the petitioner asserts that he is at risk of violent assaults at the hands of other inmates because he is a sex offender and that the respondent is doing nothing to protect him. The petitioner testified that he has not been physically or verbally abused by other inmates since his arrival at Garner. Although a petitioner "does not need to wait until he is actually assaulted before obtaining relief"; Ramos v. Lamm, 639 F.2d 559, 572 (10th Cir. 1980); there must be a substantial risk that serious harm will be inflicted upon the petitioner before a constitutional violation can be found. See Farmer v. Brennan, supra, 511 U.S. 828. The petitioner has not alleged any facts indicating that the respondent's deliberate action or inaction has caused him risk of serious harm. To be sure, it was the petitioner who voluntarily checked out of protective custody, thereby placing himself among the general population. He also occupies a single cell, which was provided to him by the respondent after his release from segregation. This Court therefore concludes that the petitioner has failed to make a prima facie case for a claim under the Eighth Amendment.
Practice Book § 15-8 provides, in pertinent part: "If, on the trial of any issue of fact in a civil action tried to the court, the plaintiff has produced evidence and rested his or her cause, the defendant may move for judgment of dismissal, and the judicial authority may grant such motion, if in its opinion the plaintiff has failed to make out a prima facie case."
Practice Book § 23-29 permits a court to "dismiss the petition or any count thereof; if it determines that . . . (5) any other legally sufficient ground for dismissal of the petition exists."
Accordingly, the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus is dismissed.