govinfo:USCOURTS-ctd-3_26-cv-00407-0

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT 
 
CHRISTOPHER FERNANDES, 
 Plaintiff, 
 
 v. 
 
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, et 
al., 
 Defendants. 
 
 
 
No. 3:26-cv-00407 (SRU) 
 
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER 
Christopher Fernandes, a pretrial detainee housed in the Connecticut Department of 
Correction (“DOC”), has filed a pro se Complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that DOC and 
four of its employees violated his constitutional rights. Compl., Doc. No. 1. The Prison 
Litigation Reform Act requires federal courts to review complaints brought by prisoners seeking 
relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 
1915A(a). A federal court must dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, that is 
frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary 
relief from a defendant who is immune from that relief. Id. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B), 1915A(b). 
Fernandes alleges in his Complaint that he fell in the day room and sustained head and 
back injuries for which he received treatment at an outside hospital. Compl., Doc. No. 1, ¶¶ 1-3. 
When Fernandes returned to the prison, he was given Tylenol and told by “[n]urses and COs” to 
“suck it up” because “they had gone through worse.” Id. ¶¶ 4-5. Medical staff have not seen 
Fernandes for a follow-up appointment or provided him with any medical care, despite 
Fernandes’s requests. Id. ¶¶ 6-7. Fernandes seeks monetary damages. Id. at 6. 
Fernandes “may not sue DOC under Section 1983 because [DOC] is not a ‘person’ 
subject to suit under section 1983, and, as an arm of the state, DOC enjoys Eleventh Amendment 

2 
 
immunity against suit in federal court.” Chimney v. Raines, 2026 WL 893250, at *3 (D. Conn. 
Mar. 31, 2026) (cleaned up). 
 To seek damages from the individual defendants, Fernandes must allege facts establishing 
the personal involvement of each defendant in an alleged constitutional violation. See Wright v. 
Smith, 21 F.3d 496, 501 (2d Cir. 1994). “The Second Circuit has defined ‘personal involvement’ 
to mean direct participation, such as ‘personal participation by one who has knowledge of the 
facts that rendered the conduct illegal,’ or indirect participation, such as ‘ordering or helping 
others to do the unlawful acts.’” Rivera v. Viger, 2021 WL 3269095, at *3 (D. Conn. July 30, 
2021) (quoting Provost v. City of Newburgh, 262 F.3d 146, 155 (2d Cir. 2001)). When a 
defendant is a supervisory official, “a plaintiff must plead and prove the elements of the 
underlying constitutional violation directly against the official without relying on a special test 
for supervisory liability.” Tangreti v. Bachmann, 983 F.3d 609, 620 (2d Cir. 2020). “As a 
corollary of the personal involvement requirement, complaints that rely on ‘group pleading’ and 
‘fail to differentiate as to which defendant was involved in the alleged unlawful conduct are 
insufficient to state a claim.’” Gonzalez v. Yepes, 2019 WL 2603533, at *7 (D. Conn. June 25, 
2019) (internal citation omitted). 
Fernandes fails to allege throughout his Complaint which individual defendants directly 
or indirectly participated in any alleged constitutional violation. See Rivera, 2021 WL 3269095, 
at *3. Consequently, Fernandes has not properly pleaded the personal involvement of any 
defendant in an alleged constitutional violation. See Casino v. Rohl, 2014 WL 5425501, at *6 
(E.D.N.Y . Oct. 23, 2014) (concluding that because the defendant was not mentioned or 
referenced in the body of the amended complaint, the plaintiff had not adequately pled the 

3 
 
defendant’s personal involvement in any of the constitutional deprivations alleged in the 
amended complaint). 
Accordingly, the Complaint must be DISMISSED without prejudice. See Myers v. 
Quiros, 2026 WL 145218, at *7 (D. Conn. Jan. 20, 2026) (dismissing complaint without 
prejudice because plaintiff “fail[ed] to allege the personal involvement of Defendants in the 
alleged constitutional violations,” among other reasons). 
 Fernandes may file an Amended Complaint correcting the deficiencies identified above 
within 30 days of this order. The Court will close this case if no Amended Complaint is filed by 
July 9, 2026. 
SO ORDERED at Bridgeport, Connecticut this 9th day of June 2026. 
 /s/ Stefan R. Underhill 
 Stefan R. Underhill 
 United States District Judge 
 
 
 

Passage view · GavelSight