You are here: Home » Adult Webmaster News » Court Declines to Dismiss Inmate's Porn Confiscation...
Select year   and month 
 
March 31, 2015

Court Declines to Dismiss Inmate's Porn Confiscation Lawsuit

CONNECTICUT—In a ruling issued yesterday on a Motion to Dismiss filed last May by the defendants in Reynolds v Murphy, a civil rights lawsuit brought in 2013 against prison officials by Richard Reynolds, an inmate incarcerated on death row at Somers, Connecticut's Northern Correctional Institution for the 1992 murder of a Waterbury police officer, U.S. District Judge Stefan Underhill refused to dismiss complaints related to pornographic magazines taken from Reynolds following a search of his cell, as well as the use of restraints following an alleged altercation. As explained by Underhill in his order, "On November 19, 2013, I dismissed the claims for money damages against the defendants in their official capacities pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915A(b)(2) and the claims under the Geneva Convention, the Fifth Amendment, the Eighth Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment relating to confiscation of personal property, loss of job and the issuance and disposition of a disciplinary report and the First Amendment relating to alleged retaliatory conduct pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). "The First Amendment claim relating to the defendants’ alleged improper confiscation of the plaintiff’s magazines and the Fourteenth Amendment due process claim relating to the plaintiff’s placement on restraint status for an indefinite time period," he continued, "were allowed to proceed against the defendants in their individual capacities and in their official capacities to the extent that the plaintiff sought injunctive and declaratory relief." Responding to the recent motion by the defendants to dismiss the remaining claims, the judge wrote that he based his ruling on facts taken from Reynold's complaint, which was written in longhand by the inmate and filed as a pro se action. "The plaintiff is an inmate confined in a cell on death row at Northern. On March 29, 2010, defendant Cahill was involved in an altercation with another death row inmate," wrote Underhill. "That same day, prison officials at Northern imposed a lockdown of the death row unit. On March 31, 2010, officers searched each death row inmate’s cell. During the search of the plaintiff’s cell, prison officials confiscated items of the plaintiff’s property, including pornographic magazines. The plaintiff alleges that he received a disciplinary report for using a wire as an antenna in his cell. After prison officials lifted the lockdown, all death row inmates were put on restraint status, requiring them to be placed either in handcuffs and leg shackles or just handcuffs every time they were escorted from their cells and back to their cells." Reynolds filed his action seeking monetary damages for being put in restraints and also for the confiscation of the porn magazines. In seeking the dismissal of the entire lawsuit, the defendants argued, per Underhill, that "the plaintiff has failed: (1) to allege their personal involvement in the alleged violations of his constitutional rights, and (2) to allege the deprivation of a liberty interest in remaining free from restraints outside of his cell." After consideration of the facts, Underhill ruled that only one of the named defendants, Warden Murphy, could be cut free of the claim regarding the porn because he was not personally involved in the confiscation of the magazines. He remains potentially liable for the use of the restraints, however.  Regarding the remaining claims, Underhill ruled, "The First Amendment claim relating to the defendants’ alleged improper confiscation of the plaintiff’s magazines remains pending against defendants Quiros, Faucher, Powers and Cahill in their individual and official capacities and the Fourteenth Amendment due process claim relating to the plaintiff’s placement on restraint status for an indefinite time period remains pending against defendants Murphy, Quiros, Faucher, Powers and Cahill in their individual capacities and official capacities." Underhill also added of his ruling, "The court considers not whether the plaintiff ultimately will prevail, but whether he has asserted sufficient facts to entitle him to offer evidence to support his claim." As previously reported by AVN, Connecticut's prisons banned the use of pornographic material by inmates in 2012. Judge Underhill's ruling on the Motion to Dismiss can be read here. The original complaint by Reynolds can be read here.

 
home | register | log in | add URL | add premium URL | forums | news | advertising | contact | sitemap
copyright © 1998 - 2009 Adult Webmasters Association. All rights reserved.