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

Case 3:00-cv-00391-HBF

Document 107-7

Filed 06/08/2005

Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT DUANE ZIEMBA V. FREDERICK THOMAS, ET AL. : : : MARCH 21, 2005 CIVIL NO. 3:00CV391(HBF)

DEFENDANTS' LOCAL RULE 56(a)1 STATEMENT 1. The plaintiff is an inmate in the custody of the Connecticut, Department of

Correction ("DOC"). (Plaintiff's Amended Complaint dated October 11, 2002 ("Complaint"), para. 4). 2. At all times pertinent to the allegations in the Complaint, the ten defendants were

employees of the DOC. (Complaint, paras. 5-9). 3. The plaintiff was transferred to Corrigan Correctional Institution on October 30,

1997. (Complaint, para. 11). 4. On March 9, 1998, the plaintiff was involved in an incident in a sallyport where

correctional officials used force on the inmate. (Complaint, paras. 30-41). 5. The defendants who were personally involved in the above stated incident in the

sally port were defendants Thomas, Fretard, Willard, Shefer, Fulcher, and Forrestal. (Id.) 6. The four undersigned defendants: Commissioner Armstrong, Warden David

Strange, Warden Mark Strange, and Investigator Elterich were not present in the sallyport during the above-stated incident on March 9, 1998. (Id.) 7. The four undersigned defendants: Commissioner Armstrong, Warden David

Strange, Warden Mark Strange, and Investigator Elterich had no direct involvement in the above-referenced incident in the sallyport. (Id.)

Case 3:00-cv-00391-HBF

Document 107-7

Filed 06/08/2005

Page 2 of 4

8.

Warden David Strange was the Warden at Corrigan Correctional Institution at all

times pertinent to this action. (Id.) 9. From the date of his transfer to Corrigan on October 30, 1997 until the date of the

incident on March 9, 1998, the plaintiff wrote letters to Warden David Strange in which he complained about various issues concerning the conditions of his confinement. paras. 16, 17, 19, 20). 10. In these letters, the plaintiff complained to Warden David Strange about the (Complaint,

taking of his legal materials and property, his being taken to Court with no shoes, and the failure of DOC staff to adequately respond to his grievances. (Complaint, paras. 16, 17, 19, 20, 25; David Strange Memo to Plaintiff March 10, 1998). 11. All of the plaintiff's complaints to Warden David Strange were investigated by

Warden Strange and/or DOC staff at Corrigan. (Strange Memo, March 10, 1998). 12. The plaintiff was informed by Warden David Strange that all of his complaints

were investigated by him and/or DOC staff at Corrigan. (Strange Memo, March 10, 1998). 13. Defendant Mark Strange was the Warden at MacDougall Correctional Institution

at all times pertinent to this action. (Complaint, paras. 58-59). 14. In June, 1998 the plaintiff was incarcerated at MacDougall Correctional

Institution. (Id.) 15. In June, 1998, the plaintiff wrote a number of letters to defendant Warden Mark

Strange in which he alleged that defendant Mark Strange was involved in a conspiracy. (Sieminski Affidavit, para. 5). 16. The plaintiff's aforementioned letters were forwarded to DOC Population

Management by Counselor Patterson from MacDougall. (Id., para. 5).

2

Case 3:00-cv-00391-HBF

Document 107-7

Filed 06/08/2005

Page 3 of 4

17.

Based on these letters, a representative at DOC Population Management made the

decision to order the plaintiff's transfer to Garner Correctional Institution. (Id., para. 6). 18. Warden Mark Strange was not involved in the decision to transfer the plaintiff to

Garner on June 19, 1998. (Id., para. 7). 19. On or about March 11, 1998, the plaintiff was transferred from Corrigan

Correctional Institution to Walker Correctional Institution. (Id.) 20. On March 12, 1998, a disciplinary hearing was held for the plaintiff at Walker

correctional facility for three charges: causing a disturbance, threats, and flagrant disobedience. (Disciplinary Process Summary Reports, pp. 1-9). 21. The plaintiff was provided notice of the disobedience charge on March 9, 1998

and was provided notice of the other two charges on March 10, 1998. (Id.) 22. The plaintiff was provided with an advocate, Mr. Wiggins, for the March 12,

1998 disciplinary hearing. (Id.) 23. At the March 12, 1998 disciplinary hearing, the plaintiff was offered the

opportunity to offer evidence in regard to the three disciplinary charges, including witnesses. (Id.) 24. 25. The plaintiff refused the offer to present evidence or witnesses. (Id.) Following the disciplinary hearing of March 12, 1998, the plaintiff was found

guilty of all three charges. (Id.) 26. The guilty finding, in each of the three charges, was based on the statement of the

reporting officer. (Id.) 27. As a result of these guilty findings, the plaintiff received 40 days in punitive

segregation. (Id.)

3

Case 3:00-cv-00391-HBF

Document 107-7

Filed 06/08/2005

Page 4 of 4

28.

Defendant Raymond Elterich, a former investigator for the DOC Security

Division, played no role in the March 12, 1998 disciplinary hearing. (Id., pp. 1-9). DEFENDANTS John Armstrong, David, Strange, Mark Strange and Raymond Elterich RICHARD BLUMENTHAL ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: _____/s/____________________________ Matthew B. Beizer Assistant Attorney General 110 Sherman Street Hartford, CT 06105 Federal Bar #ct16304 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 21st day of March, 2005: Antonio Ponvert, III, Esq. Koskoff, Koskoff & Bieder, P.C. 350 Fairfield Avenue, 5th Floor Bridgeport, CT 06604 James Nugent, Esq. Nugent and Bryant 236 Boston Post Road Orange, CT 06477

_______/s/__________________________ Matthew B. Beizer Assistant Attorney General

4