Preview
DOCKET NO.CV23-5024344-S SUPERIOR COURT
BILL HENDERSON J.D. OF NEW LONDON
Vv. HELD AT NEW LONDON
C/O FONTAINE, ET AL. DATE:
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S
OBJECTION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS
Pursuant to practice book sections 10-6 thru 10-31 et seq,
the plaintiff in the above captioned matter hereby objects to
the defendant's motion to dismiss. The plaintiff asks the court
to object to the defendant's motion to dismiss. The plaintiff
asks this court to also object to the defendants false/misleading
facts. the plaintiff represents the following facts:
1. ARGUMENT
A. The defendant falsely claims lack of jurisdiction over
defendant fontaine.
The defendant falsely states that the plaintiff did not
serve the defendant fontaine as required by statute. This claim
by the defendant is not only false but also ridiculous in nature
and a clear misrepresentation of the facts and of the law.
The defendant is aware that the plaintiff is pro-se and
has been incarcerated for over twenty years. The process for
a pro-se incarcerated person for effectuating service on a defendant
is done pursuant to the courts granting of an application of
waiver of fees and costs. and the signing of a civil summons for
which it indicates all names of defendants to be served. The
plaintiff clearly followed all appropriate steps required to
effectuate service on all defendants. - wee ne FILED --- ~~
E
AUG 3 1 2023
* SUPERIOR COURT
- NEW LONDON
JUDICIAL DISTRICTAT NEW LONDON
The defenants were served via state marshal service at the
attorney generals office. The defendant is attempting to mislead
the court by overlooking facts and law.
The state marshal is not required to make multiple copies
of the same summons and complaint and serve it upon the attorney
general's office as the superior court judge did not order or
grant the state marshal authority or fees to do so. Once the
state marshal completed service at-the attorney generals office
all defendants has deemed to be served.
The attorney generals office has a pattern of misrepresenting
the law pursuant to personal jurisdiction involving service.
The defendant counsel (A.A.G.) is an officer of the court and
is purposely making a frivolous argument and providing false
facts to the tribunal which is a violation of professional conduct.
Connecticut proactice book section 10-13 " METHOD OF SERVICE
states in part:
service upon the attorney or upon a self-represented
party... may be done by delivering a copy or
by mailing it to the last known address of the
attorney or party.. delivery of a copy within
this section means handing it to the attorney
or to the party, or leaving it at the attorney's
office...
The attorney general's office is the defendants attorney
by choice, so it can not have it both ways. The attorney general's
office can not on one hand represent all department of corrections
personell then later claim in its benefit, that service was not
made. Also the defendant has been given a copy of the plaintiff's
civil summons which clearly states both defendant fontaine and
defendant martin as defendants in the above captioned matter.
The defendant can not " pick and choose ‘what specific defendant
to represent or exclude a defendant to make a meritless claim
and a frivolous argument to support it.
Further, the superior court issues on a normal basis an
order to the state's marshal, via application of waiver of fees,
to complete service on DOC personell/defendant's at the attorney
general's office which is always accepted and never objected
to by the attorney general's office. This is a normal practice
—
by the superior court judges.
The defendant's argument/claims pursuant to lack of personal
jurisdiction over defendant fontaine has no merit and should
be objected/denied.
B. defendant martin is not protected by sovereign. immunity.
The defendant falsely asserts that he is protected by sovereign
immunity. The plaintiff clearly requested injunctive relief
and declaratory relief and punitive damages against the defendant
martin and the plaintiff's suit against defendant martin who
is the official warden at corrrigan cc, is for condoning retaliation
by one of his employees along with other violations and the defendant
martin has personal involvements in the violations against the
plaintiff as he was clearly awaree in the past of the same actions
and violations by defendant fontaine against the plaintiff..see
exhibit A.
The defendant is attempting to change the plaintiff's claims
into a claim against the state of connecticut, which the plaintiff's
complaint is not against the state. At no time did the plaintiff
state/claim any claims against the state of connecticut. A claim
of " official capacity "
can not be inferred as a’claim against
the state of connecticut. This is a misrepresentation of the fawWs
g
A particular. defendant's personal involvement in the
constitutional violation is a prerequisite to an award of damages
under 42 U.S.C. §1983. Wright v. Smith, 21 £.3d 496,501
(2d cir. 1994)
Personal involvement is a question of fact..see Williams
v. Smith, 781 £.2d 319,323 (2d cir.1986).. so it can not be
resolved on a motion to dismiss. The second circuit has held
that a supervisory official has the requisite personal
involvement for §1983 liability where; (1) the defendant
participated directly in the alleged constitutional violation
(2) the defendant after being informed of the violation through
a report or appeal, filed to remedy the wrong,(3) the defendant
created a policy or custom under which unconstitutional practices
occurred or allowed the continuance of such a policy or custom
(4) the defendant was grossly negligent in supervision
subordinates who committed the wrong acts, or(5) the defendant
exhibited deliberate indifference to the rights of inmates by
failing to act on information indicating that unconstitutional
acts were occurring. see Colon v. Coughlin, 58 £.3d 865,873
(2d cir.1995) The second circuit has held that a motion to
dismiss based upon a claimed lack of personal involvement should
be denied if an inmate plaintiff alleges that he sent a written
complaint to a warden, because the plaintiff is entitled to
have the court draw the reasonable inference...Grullon 720 £.3d.
In considereing a motion to dismiss for failure to state
a claim...a district court may consider..:documents attached
to the complaint as exhibits...Difolco v. MSNBC Cable LLC, 622
£.3d 104,111(2d cir.2010)
I
The defendant has not requested any discovery to learn if
the defendant was aware or not of any of the plaintiff's claims
in his complaint, no inquiry was done. The plaintiff also has
a previous agreement by the attorney general's office for his
medically needed footwear which the defendants are aware of.
The defendant martin claims for sovereign immunity has no
merit and should be denied.
Cc. Defendant fontaine does not enjoy statutory immunity.
The defendant fontaine has malicously, wanton and recklessly
committed acts against the plaintiff which is clearly outside ‘
the scope of her duty and a pattern of misconduct . 4
The plaintiff's claim of retaliation in itself is a claim
of wanton, reckless and malicous behavior.
The plaintiff never claimed that the defendant should ignore
mail screenings as part of her duty, only retaliation, which
is outside of her duty. Defendant fontaine was made aware in
the past and present of the plaintiff's footwear authorization.
The defendant fontaine does not have the authority to reject
the plaintiff's footwear or’ unauthorized items that is done by
a supeervisor and/or securtiy division personell at the facility.
To prove this fact, once the plaintiff got the attorney
general's office involved in relations to the defendant's violations
the attorney general's office contacted the facility supervisor's
(not the defendant) and the plaintiff was immediately given his
authorized, court ordered agreement footwear. Defendant fontaine
was provided with and told about the plaintiff's court ordered
agreement with the attorney general's office for his medically
needed footwear prior to this occurance and after her actions.
The only prisoner's who are allowed footwear from outside
vendors are medically prescribed or by court order settlements
and/or agreements, in DOC facilities.
The defendant's actions clearly violated the plaintiff's
constitutional rithts and has a casual connection with the plaintiff's
complaint's, grievances filed and prior court order.
The defendant's claim for statutory immunity has no merit
and should be denied.
D. The defendant does net have qualified immunity.
The defendant wrongly states that both defendant's are entitled
to qualified immunity in another attempt to mislead the court.
2
~ Qualified immunity only applies to officials sued in the
individual capacity and defendant fontaine is the only defendant
sued in her individual capacity, not defendant martin.
The plaintiff's incarceration status is irrelevant and does
not bar the plaintiff of well established protections of his
constitutional rights, the defendant falsely claims that the
plaintiff has no rights because he is incarcerated which has
no evidence to support such a ridiculous notion. The laws and
constitutional rights for prisoner's are well established pursuant
to DOC directives, united states amendments and the connecticut
constitution.
The-courts has held when a defendant violates a direct court
judgment or order, they have absolutely violated clearly established
law...see davis v. hall, 375 £.3d 703, 713-14 (8th cir. 2004);
slone v. herman, 983 £.2d 107, 109-10 (8th cir. 1993) see also
kaminsky v. rosenblum, 737 f.supp. 1309, 1319 (S-D.N.Y. 1990)
and DOC directives 10.7 and 2.17.
The plaintiff's rights were obvious and clear once the plaintiff
provided the defendant with documentation which put both defendant's
on notice. There was no lawful act committed by the defendant.
Again the defendant's argument is premature and lacks in
evidence and merit. Qualified immunity does not apply to the
defendant, this claim has no merit and should be denied.
E. CONCLUSION
For the above stated reasons, the plaintiff respectfully
request this court objects to the defendant's motion.
F
T does the atty general's office represent c/o fontaine? as
they claimed that no service was given.. the a.a.g. is attempting
to mislead the court.
EXHIBIT
A
LAW OFFICES OF J. PATTEN BROWN, IIT
43 WEST MAIN STREET * AVON CT * 06001
Phone: (860) 321-7722 * Fax: (860) 404-2568
J. Patten Brown, III * Caroline Patenaude
Alexander Glomb Laura Hawk-Allen
Michael Edelson Jessica Skowronek
Delena Brown Corey Berry
September 23, 2019
Warden Anthony Corcella
Corrigan Correctional Center
986 Norwich-New London Turnpike
Uncasville, CT 06382
Fax No. 860-848-5821
Re: Bill Roy Henderson #210215
Dear Warden Corcella,
I currently represent Mr. Henderson in his pending legal matter. Mr. Henderson had
surgery on his foot for cancer in 2016, which resulted in long-term issues which require
proper and adequate footwear. Since that surgery, Mr. Henderson has been approved
to have one new pair of shoes every year, as long as they comply with certain criteria.
This has never caused an issue in other DOC facilities, however, it has been brought to
my attention that staff are not allowing Mr. Henderson to have the shoes that he is
approved to have. It is my understanding that the shoes Mr. Henderson requires have
been received by your facility, but have not been given to Mr. Henderson. Mr.
Henderson has paperwork that verifies this approval and that is entitled, for medical
reasons, to have the shoes that have been sent to him. 'I appreciate your attention to this
matter and hope that this issue can be resolved. Please feel free to call if you have any
questions at 860-321-7722. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Laura Hawk-Allen, Esq.
* Admitted in Connecticut, New York, Tennessee & Louisiana Federal and State Courts
2nd, 5th and 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
US. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
LAW OFFICES OF PAT BROWN
43 WEST MAIN STREET AVON CT 06001
Phone: (860) 321-7722 * Fax: (860) 404-2568
Civil Division: (860) 773-5005 » 49 West Main Street, Avon CT 06001
New London Office: (860) 448-7055 * 300 State Street, Suite 412, New London CT 06320
J. Patten Brown, III * Whitney Lorello
Delena Brown Alissa Doiron
Magdalena Narozniak Kaprice Bonaiuto Blatche
Jessica Skowronek Violet Dussault
January 23, 2023
Warden Robert Martin
Corrigan Correctional Center
986 Norwich-New London Turnpike
Uncasville, CT 06382
Re: Bill Roy Henderson #210215
Dear Warden Martin,
| currently represent Mr. Henderson in his pending legal matter. Mr. Henderson had surgery on
his foot for cancer in 2016, which resulted in long-term issues which require proper and
adequate footwear. Since that surgery, Mr. Henderson has been approved to have one new
pair of shoes every year, as long as'they comply with certain criteria. This has never caused an
issue in other DOC facilities, however, it has been brought to my attention that staff are not
allowing Mr. Henderson to have the shoes that he is approved to have. It is my understanding
that the shoes Mr. Henderson requires have been received by your facility, but have not been
given to Mr. Henderson. Mr. Henderson has paperwork that verifies this approval and that is
entitled, for medical reasons, to have the shoes that have been sent to him. | appreciate your
attention to this matter and hope that this issue can be resolved. Please feel free to call if you
have any questions at 860-321-7722. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Kaprice M. Bonaiuto Blatche, Esq.
* Admitted in Connecticut, New York, Tennessee & Louisiana Federal and State Courts
2nd, 5th and 6th US. Circuit Court of Appeals
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
LAW OFFICES OF PAT BROWN
43 WEST MAIN STREET AVON CT 06001
Phone: (860) 321-7722 * Fax: (860) 404-2568
Civil Division: (860) 773-5005 * 49 West Main Street, Avon CT 06001
New London Office: (860) 448-7055 * 300 State Street, Suite 412, New London CT 06320
J. Patten Brown, III * Whitney Lorello
Delena Brown, Alissa Doiron
Magdalena Narozniak Kaprice Bonaiuto Blatche
Jessica Skowronek Violet Dussault
Warden Robert Martin
Corrigan CC
986 Norwich-New London Turnpike
Uncasville, CT 06382
RE: Bill Roy Henderson #210215
March 3, 2023
Dear Warden Martin:
| have attached with this letter the court order from 2016 and doctors note stating that
Mr. Henderson, at his own expense, is permitted to purchase outside footwear for his ongoing
post-surgical heel discomfort. This order was put in place as part of an agreement for Mr.
Henderson to drop the habeas he had against DOC regarding this issue. This order does not
have an expiration date and is in place as long as Mr. Henderson still has the heel discomfort.
Mr. Henderson is currently still experiencing this discomfort and needs those shoes. He has
provided these same documents to staff at your facility and he was still denied the shoes.
Further, Mr. Henderson has not seen the podiatrist since before December 2022, and has not
been told by that doctor that his foot is healed. He has been trying to see the doctor for months
but has not been able to. He still has part of a surgical clip stuck in his heel and the shoes are
needed to help his discomfort while this surgical clip is still in his heel. So, please have your mail
room staff release the shoes to Mr. Henderson. If you have any questions or concerns, please
feel free to me at the above listed phone number.
Thank you!
Sincerely,
Kaprice M. Bonaiuto Blatche, Esq.
* Admitted in Connecticut, New York, Tennessee & Louisiana Federal and State Courts
2nd, 5th and 6th U.S, Circuit Court of Appeals
US. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
Connecticut Department of Correction.
Generated on 4/17/2023 12:20:29 PM
[INMATE NUMBER [DATE OF BIRTH
CONSULTATION FORM 10021021 8/6/4960.
[INMATE NAME (LAST.FIRST,INITIAL)
HENDERSON,BILL RO’
ISEX IRACE/ETHNIC FACILITY
M IBLAC! CORR/RAD CC.
Specialty Procedure Treating Facil
Dermatology Consult - Return Visit IUCH' Spoke
iC OPD == Does
Does Not
Not Require
Require NPO
Nro Status.
ses
Diagnosis. pt Date
Other. 4/25/2003 411:00:00:AM.
Summary for consultant:
iM with hx Malignant Melanoma right heel, s/p resection, Seen by Derm 1/14/19 and again. with 6 month ffu 7/1/19. At that time, Dermatology made
Note. of “multiple moles - no coriceming features. Well healed scar. No evidence of récurrence." However, inmate is now complaining of increased size
|of scar, heel pain and discoloration. Concern for recurrence. Requesting Derm consultation for evaluation and punch. biopsy if warranted.
Allergies: (circle) NKA 463)tist) Sw Hoh. Bawi| Terazdsm HO} Diabetes:(circle) Yes
Consultant's Brief Summary of Findings/Recommendations:
I) New Fat bed,
HSK yh Che
DN Scar Frm prelenw ties: proce
— [bean
be atl
vw tb use bo wr Sneekeg
- Recemnord pe ure orth sar - Maral
Gee te pum pe cok
Peto per peferar to supery (Ph Sey tore 7 SHI!
aA
te
C lp eet hy
Recorymendations:
4 DX or THERAPEUTIC PROCEDURES MUST BE PRECERTIFIED AND SCHEDULED BY UR.
Laboratory testing is available in the Correctional facilities:
See cbiye
" Suggested Follow-up*: Check One Only Dwith Fatitity Statt In~__ weeks
*Specity only follow-up that can't be done in the DOC acities, which have staffin general medicine, Infectious disease, psychiatry, optometry, dentisty,
in‘$, ~OB-GYN,
{Lemont
and podiatry,
—— Sho -¢ 79- Youo 4 dro)
Neae\ Tar
Signature Beeper or Phone Date
Attending Sontig = Ss gee AD
Consult Must Be = by Clinician Prior to Filing In tomate Health Record:
Glinician Name/Title: Date/Time
DOCKET NO. CV13-4005272-S
BILL HENDERSON SUPERIOR COURT
VS. JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF
TOLLAND AT ROCKVILLE
WARDEN AUGUST 30, 2016
AGREEMENT
‘The parties in the above captioned case have come to the following agreement:
‘WHEREAS, the petitioner brought said habeas petition on or about March 25, 2013.
WHEREAS, the petitioner had melanoma excised from his foot and has experienced ongoing post-
surgical heel discomfort.
WHEREAS, there is a Doctor's order dated November4, 2015. Said order states that the petitioner be
pemnitted to purchase “outside footwear at his own expense.” (Exhibit A)
WHEREAS, the petitioner currently has one pair of outside footwear currently in his possession.
x
WHEREAS, the parties further agree:
1 The petitioner will withdraw said habeas petition.
2. The petitioner has one pair of outside footwear in his possession. Upon execution of this
agreement petitioner will be provided with the second pair of outside footwear curréntly being
held by custody, provided that pottioner relinquishes any additional footwear currently iin his
Possession.
- v
The petitioner is permitted to purchase, af his own expense outside footwear once (1) per year
provided that said footwear continues to be medically necessary and there are no custody
concerns s with said footwear.
At no time shall the petitioner have more than two pairs of shoes in his prison cell.
Tdwhen the petitioner gets another pair of outside footwear each following year, it is on the
condition that petitioner relinguish a pair when fhe new pair arrives to ensure he does not
accumulate pairs of shoes.
6. lfpetitioner fails to order or'receive a pair of outside shoes in a given year, it does not forfeit his
Tight to order one (1) pair of outside shoes once a yearin following years consistent with the
sfremantioned clauses to this agreement.
i
IN WITNESS WHEREOF; the Parties heréto have éxecuted this agreement effective this Sf
day of August, 2016.
THE PETITIONER: FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE
RESPONDENT:
Me
Bill Henderson; Tamate i 0215
Assistantnt fs ey General
COR -LO 7-7/6
Dats Dats
fg tT a
ne RE kb
Hibs28 thi
Sueno
K
COMNET 3 1G SPARS:
Bed Beso
PHY. SICIAN'S ORDERS BT eins Herdason Gill to,
* [saga
Preview
DOCKET NO.CV23-5024344-S SUPERIOR COURT BILL HENDERSON J.D. OF NEW LONDON Vv. HELD AT NEW LONDON C/O FONTAINE, ET AL. DATE: MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS Pursuant to practice book sections 10-6 thru 10-31 et seq, the plaintiff in the above captioned matter hereby objects to the defendant's motion to dismiss. The plaintiff asks the court to object to the defendant's motion to dismiss. The plaintiff asks this court to also object to the defendants false/misleading facts. the plaintiff represents the following facts: 1. ARGUMENT A. The defendant falsely claims lack of jurisdiction over defendant fontaine. The defendant falsely states that the plaintiff did not serve the defendant fontaine as required by statute. This claim by the defendant is not only false but also ridiculous in nature and a clear misrepresentation of the facts and of the law. The defendant is aware that the plaintiff is pro-se and has been incarcerated for over twenty years. The process for a pro-se incarcerated person for effectuating service on a defendant is done pursuant to the courts granting of an application of waiver of fees and costs. and the signing of a civil summons for which it indicates all names of defendants to be served. The plaintiff clearly followed all appropriate steps required to effectuate service on all defendants. - wee ne FILED --- ~~ E AUG 3 1 2023 * SUPERIOR COURT - NEW LONDON JUDICIAL DISTRICTAT NEW LONDON The defenants were served via state marshal service at the attorney generals office. The defendant is attempting to mislead the court by overlooking facts and law. The state marshal is not required to make multiple copies of the same summons and complaint and serve it upon the attorney general's office as the superior court judge did not order or grant the state marshal authority or fees to do so. Once the state marshal completed service at-the attorney generals office all defendants has deemed to be served. The attorney generals office has a pattern of misrepresenting the law pursuant to personal jurisdiction involving service. The defendant counsel (A.A.G.) is an officer of the court and is purposely making a frivolous argument and providing false facts to the tribunal which is a violation of professional conduct. Connecticut proactice book section 10-13 " METHOD OF SERVICE states in part: service upon the attorney or upon a self-represented party... may be done by delivering a copy or by mailing it to the last known address of the attorney or party.. delivery of a copy within this section means handing it to the attorney or to the party, or leaving it at the attorney's office... The attorney general's office is the defendants attorney by choice, so it can not have it both ways. The attorney general's office can not on one hand represent all department of corrections personell then later claim in its benefit, that service was not made. Also the defendant has been given a copy of the plaintiff's civil summons which clearly states both defendant fontaine and defendant martin as defendants in the above captioned matter. The defendant can not " pick and choose ‘what specific defendant to represent or exclude a defendant to make a meritless claim and a frivolous argument to support it. Further, the superior court issues on a normal basis an order to the state's marshal, via application of waiver of fees, to complete service on DOC personell/defendant's at the attorney general's office which is always accepted and never objected to by the attorney general's office. This is a normal practice — by the superior court judges. The defendant's argument/claims pursuant to lack of personal jurisdiction over defendant fontaine has no merit and should be objected/denied. B. defendant martin is not protected by sovereign. immunity. The defendant falsely asserts that he is protected by sovereign immunity. The plaintiff clearly requested injunctive relief and declaratory relief and punitive damages against the defendant martin and the plaintiff's suit against defendant martin who is the official warden at corrrigan cc, is for condoning retaliation by one of his employees along with other violations and the defendant martin has personal involvements in the violations against the plaintiff as he was clearly awaree in the past of the same actions and violations by defendant fontaine against the plaintiff..see exhibit A. The defendant is attempting to change the plaintiff's claims into a claim against the state of connecticut, which the plaintiff's complaint is not against the state. At no time did the plaintiff state/claim any claims against the state of connecticut. A claim of " official capacity " can not be inferred as a’claim against the state of connecticut. This is a misrepresentation of the fawWs g A particular. defendant's personal involvement in the constitutional violation is a prerequisite to an award of damages under 42 U.S.C. §1983. Wright v. Smith, 21 £.3d 496,501 (2d cir. 1994) Personal involvement is a question of fact..see Williams v. Smith, 781 £.2d 319,323 (2d cir.1986).. so it can not be resolved on a motion to dismiss. The second circuit has held that a supervisory official has the requisite personal involvement for §1983 liability where; (1) the defendant participated directly in the alleged constitutional violation (2) the defendant after being informed of the violation through a report or appeal, filed to remedy the wrong,(3) the defendant created a policy or custom under which unconstitutional practices occurred or allowed the continuance of such a policy or custom (4) the defendant was grossly negligent in supervision subordinates who committed the wrong acts, or(5) the defendant exhibited deliberate indifference to the rights of inmates by failing to act on information indicating that unconstitutional acts were occurring. see Colon v. Coughlin, 58 £.3d 865,873 (2d cir.1995) The second circuit has held that a motion to dismiss based upon a claimed lack of personal involvement should be denied if an inmate plaintiff alleges that he sent a written complaint to a warden, because the plaintiff is entitled to have the court draw the reasonable inference...Grullon 720 £.3d. In considereing a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim...a district court may consider..:documents attached to the complaint as exhibits...Difolco v. MSNBC Cable LLC, 622 £.3d 104,111(2d cir.2010) I The defendant has not requested any discovery to learn if the defendant was aware or not of any of the plaintiff's claims in his complaint, no inquiry was done. The plaintiff also has a previous agreement by the attorney general's office for his medically needed footwear which the defendants are aware of. The defendant martin claims for sovereign immunity has no merit and should be denied. Cc. Defendant fontaine does not enjoy statutory immunity. The defendant fontaine has malicously, wanton and recklessly committed acts against the plaintiff which is clearly outside ‘ the scope of her duty and a pattern of misconduct . 4 The plaintiff's claim of retaliation in itself is a claim of wanton, reckless and malicous behavior. The plaintiff never claimed that the defendant should ignore mail screenings as part of her duty, only retaliation, which is outside of her duty. Defendant fontaine was made aware in the past and present of the plaintiff's footwear authorization. The defendant fontaine does not have the authority to reject the plaintiff's footwear or’ unauthorized items that is done by a supeervisor and/or securtiy division personell at the facility. To prove this fact, once the plaintiff got the attorney general's office involved in relations to the defendant's violations the attorney general's office contacted the facility supervisor's (not the defendant) and the plaintiff was immediately given his authorized, court ordered agreement footwear. Defendant fontaine was provided with and told about the plaintiff's court ordered agreement with the attorney general's office for his medically needed footwear prior to this occurance and after her actions. The only prisoner's who are allowed footwear from outside vendors are medically prescribed or by court order settlements and/or agreements, in DOC facilities. The defendant's actions clearly violated the plaintiff's constitutional rithts and has a casual connection with the plaintiff's complaint's, grievances filed and prior court order. The defendant's claim for statutory immunity has no merit and should be denied. D. The defendant does net have qualified immunity. The defendant wrongly states that both defendant's are entitled to qualified immunity in another attempt to mislead the court. 2 ~ Qualified immunity only applies to officials sued in the individual capacity and defendant fontaine is the only defendant sued in her individual capacity, not defendant martin. The plaintiff's incarceration status is irrelevant and does not bar the plaintiff of well established protections of his constitutional rights, the defendant falsely claims that the plaintiff has no rights because he is incarcerated which has no evidence to support such a ridiculous notion. The laws and constitutional rights for prisoner's are well established pursuant to DOC directives, united states amendments and the connecticut constitution. The-courts has held when a defendant violates a direct court judgment or order, they have absolutely violated clearly established law...see davis v. hall, 375 £.3d 703, 713-14 (8th cir. 2004); slone v. herman, 983 £.2d 107, 109-10 (8th cir. 1993) see also kaminsky v. rosenblum, 737 f.supp. 1309, 1319 (S-D.N.Y. 1990) and DOC directives 10.7 and 2.17. The plaintiff's rights were obvious and clear once the plaintiff provided the defendant with documentation which put both defendant's on notice. There was no lawful act committed by the defendant. Again the defendant's argument is premature and lacks in evidence and merit. Qualified immunity does not apply to the defendant, this claim has no merit and should be denied. E. CONCLUSION For the above stated reasons, the plaintiff respectfully request this court objects to the defendant's motion. F T does the atty general's office represent c/o fontaine? as they claimed that no service was given.. the a.a.g. is attempting to mislead the court. EXHIBIT A LAW OFFICES OF J. PATTEN BROWN, IIT 43 WEST MAIN STREET * AVON CT * 06001 Phone: (860) 321-7722 * Fax: (860) 404-2568 J. Patten Brown, III * Caroline Patenaude Alexander Glomb Laura Hawk-Allen Michael Edelson Jessica Skowronek Delena Brown Corey Berry September 23, 2019 Warden Anthony Corcella Corrigan Correctional Center 986 Norwich-New London Turnpike Uncasville, CT 06382 Fax No. 860-848-5821 Re: Bill Roy Henderson #210215 Dear Warden Corcella, I currently represent Mr. Henderson in his pending legal matter. Mr. Henderson had surgery on his foot for cancer in 2016, which resulted in long-term issues which require proper and adequate footwear. Since that surgery, Mr. Henderson has been approved to have one new pair of shoes every year, as long as they comply with certain criteria. This has never caused an issue in other DOC facilities, however, it has been brought to my attention that staff are not allowing Mr. Henderson to have the shoes that he is approved to have. It is my understanding that the shoes Mr. Henderson requires have been received by your facility, but have not been given to Mr. Henderson. Mr. Henderson has paperwork that verifies this approval and that is entitled, for medical reasons, to have the shoes that have been sent to him. 'I appreciate your attention to this matter and hope that this issue can be resolved. Please feel free to call if you have any questions at 860-321-7722. Thank you. Sincerely, Laura Hawk-Allen, Esq. * Admitted in Connecticut, New York, Tennessee & Louisiana Federal and State Courts 2nd, 5th and 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals US. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces LAW OFFICES OF PAT BROWN 43 WEST MAIN STREET AVON CT 06001 Phone: (860) 321-7722 * Fax: (860) 404-2568 Civil Division: (860) 773-5005 » 49 West Main Street, Avon CT 06001 New London Office: (860) 448-7055 * 300 State Street, Suite 412, New London CT 06320 J. Patten Brown, III * Whitney Lorello Delena Brown Alissa Doiron Magdalena Narozniak Kaprice Bonaiuto Blatche Jessica Skowronek Violet Dussault January 23, 2023 Warden Robert Martin Corrigan Correctional Center 986 Norwich-New London Turnpike Uncasville, CT 06382 Re: Bill Roy Henderson #210215 Dear Warden Martin, | currently represent Mr. Henderson in his pending legal matter. Mr. Henderson had surgery on his foot for cancer in 2016, which resulted in long-term issues which require proper and adequate footwear. Since that surgery, Mr. Henderson has been approved to have one new pair of shoes every year, as long as'they comply with certain criteria. This has never caused an issue in other DOC facilities, however, it has been brought to my attention that staff are not allowing Mr. Henderson to have the shoes that he is approved to have. It is my understanding that the shoes Mr. Henderson requires have been received by your facility, but have not been given to Mr. Henderson. Mr. Henderson has paperwork that verifies this approval and that is entitled, for medical reasons, to have the shoes that have been sent to him. | appreciate your attention to this matter and hope that this issue can be resolved. Please feel free to call if you have any questions at 860-321-7722. Thank you. Sincerely, Kaprice M. Bonaiuto Blatche, Esq. * Admitted in Connecticut, New York, Tennessee & Louisiana Federal and State Courts 2nd, 5th and 6th US. Circuit Court of Appeals U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces LAW OFFICES OF PAT BROWN 43 WEST MAIN STREET AVON CT 06001 Phone: (860) 321-7722 * Fax: (860) 404-2568 Civil Division: (860) 773-5005 * 49 West Main Street, Avon CT 06001 New London Office: (860) 448-7055 * 300 State Street, Suite 412, New London CT 06320 J. Patten Brown, III * Whitney Lorello Delena Brown, Alissa Doiron Magdalena Narozniak Kaprice Bonaiuto Blatche Jessica Skowronek Violet Dussault Warden Robert Martin Corrigan CC 986 Norwich-New London Turnpike Uncasville, CT 06382 RE: Bill Roy Henderson #210215 March 3, 2023 Dear Warden Martin: | have attached with this letter the court order from 2016 and doctors note stating that Mr. Henderson, at his own expense, is permitted to purchase outside footwear for his ongoing post-surgical heel discomfort. This order was put in place as part of an agreement for Mr. Henderson to drop the habeas he had against DOC regarding this issue. This order does not have an expiration date and is in place as long as Mr. Henderson still has the heel discomfort. Mr. Henderson is currently still experiencing this discomfort and needs those shoes. He has provided these same documents to staff at your facility and he was still denied the shoes. Further, Mr. Henderson has not seen the podiatrist since before December 2022, and has not been told by that doctor that his foot is healed. He has been trying to see the doctor for months but has not been able to. He still has part of a surgical clip stuck in his heel and the shoes are needed to help his discomfort while this surgical clip is still in his heel. So, please have your mail room staff release the shoes to Mr. Henderson. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to me at the above listed phone number. Thank you! Sincerely, Kaprice M. Bonaiuto Blatche, Esq. * Admitted in Connecticut, New York, Tennessee & Louisiana Federal and State Courts 2nd, 5th and 6th U.S, Circuit Court of Appeals US. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces Connecticut Department of Correction. Generated on 4/17/2023 12:20:29 PM [INMATE NUMBER [DATE OF BIRTH CONSULTATION FORM 10021021 8/6/4960. [INMATE NAME (LAST.FIRST,INITIAL) HENDERSON,BILL RO’ ISEX IRACE/ETHNIC FACILITY M IBLAC! CORR/RAD CC. Specialty Procedure Treating Facil Dermatology Consult - Return Visit IUCH' Spoke iC OPD == Does Does Not Not Require Require NPO Nro Status. ses Diagnosis. pt Date Other. 4/25/2003 411:00:00:AM. Summary for consultant: iM with hx Malignant Melanoma right heel, s/p resection, Seen by Derm 1/14/19 and again. with 6 month ffu 7/1/19. At that time, Dermatology made Note. of “multiple moles - no coriceming features. Well healed scar. No evidence of récurrence." However, inmate is now complaining of increased size |of scar, heel pain and discoloration. Concern for recurrence. Requesting Derm consultation for evaluation and punch. biopsy if warranted. Allergies: (circle) NKA 463)tist) Sw Hoh. Bawi| Terazdsm HO} Diabetes:(circle) Yes Consultant's Brief Summary of Findings/Recommendations: I) New Fat bed, HSK yh Che DN Scar Frm prelenw ties: proce — [bean be atl vw tb use bo wr Sneekeg - Recemnord pe ure orth sar - Maral Gee te pum pe cok Peto per peferar to supery (Ph Sey tore 7 SHI! aA te C lp eet hy Recorymendations: 4 DX or THERAPEUTIC PROCEDURES MUST BE PRECERTIFIED AND SCHEDULED BY UR. Laboratory testing is available in the Correctional facilities: See cbiye " Suggested Follow-up*: Check One Only Dwith Fatitity Statt In~__ weeks *Specity only follow-up that can't be done in the DOC acities, which have staffin general medicine, Infectious disease, psychiatry, optometry, dentisty, in‘$, ~OB-GYN, {Lemont and podiatry, —— Sho -¢ 79- Youo 4 dro) Neae\ Tar Signature Beeper or Phone Date Attending Sontig = Ss gee AD Consult Must Be = by Clinician Prior to Filing In tomate Health Record: Glinician Name/Title: Date/Time DOCKET NO. CV13-4005272-S BILL HENDERSON SUPERIOR COURT VS. JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TOLLAND AT ROCKVILLE WARDEN AUGUST 30, 2016 AGREEMENT ‘The parties in the above captioned case have come to the following agreement: ‘WHEREAS, the petitioner brought said habeas petition on or about March 25, 2013. WHEREAS, the petitioner had melanoma excised from his foot and has experienced ongoing post- surgical heel discomfort. WHEREAS, there is a Doctor's order dated November4, 2015. Said order states that the petitioner be pemnitted to purchase “outside footwear at his own expense.” (Exhibit A) WHEREAS, the petitioner currently has one pair of outside footwear currently in his possession. x WHEREAS, the parties further agree: 1 The petitioner will withdraw said habeas petition. 2. The petitioner has one pair of outside footwear in his possession. Upon execution of this agreement petitioner will be provided with the second pair of outside footwear curréntly being held by custody, provided that pottioner relinquishes any additional footwear currently iin his Possession. - v The petitioner is permitted to purchase, af his own expense outside footwear once (1) per year provided that said footwear continues to be medically necessary and there are no custody concerns s with said footwear. At no time shall the petitioner have more than two pairs of shoes in his prison cell. Tdwhen the petitioner gets another pair of outside footwear each following year, it is on the condition that petitioner relinguish a pair when fhe new pair arrives to ensure he does not accumulate pairs of shoes. 6. lfpetitioner fails to order or'receive a pair of outside shoes in a given year, it does not forfeit his Tight to order one (1) pair of outside shoes once a yearin following years consistent with the sfremantioned clauses to this agreement. i IN WITNESS WHEREOF; the Parties heréto have éxecuted this agreement effective this Sf day of August, 2016. THE PETITIONER: FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT: Me Bill Henderson; Tamate i 0215 Assistantnt fs ey General COR -LO 7-7/6 Dats Dats fg tT a ne RE kb Hibs28 thi Sueno K COMNET 3 1G SPARS: Bed Beso PHY. SICIAN'S ORDERS BT eins Herdason Gill to, * [saga