Lewis v. Oliver et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
DEVONTE LEWIS,
Plaintiff,
v.
C/O BRENDON OLIVER,
Correctional
Officer at HSC, in his individual and
official capacities; C/O REED,
Correctional Officer at HSC, in his
individual and official capacities;
DIRECTOR WAYNE T. SALISBURY,
JR.,
Director of the R.I. D.O.C., in his
individual and official capacities; LT.
ALYSSA WEAKLY,
Lieutenant at
HSC, in her individual and official
capacities; C/O ORDONEZ,
Correctional Officer at HSC, in his
individual and official capacities; C/O
FORTES,
Correctional Officer at HSC,
in his individual and official capacities;
C/O CUNEJO,
Correctional Officer at
HSC, in his individual and official
capacities; LT. GERARD GRANDPRE,
Lieutenant at HSC, in his individual
and official capacities; LT. GASPHAR,
Lieutenant at HSC, in his individual
and official capacities; C/O
SARITELLI,
Correctional Officer at
HSC, in his individual and official
capacities; B. GALLAGHER,
Hearing
Officer at HSC, in her individual and
official capacities; DEPUTY WARDEN
JASON MASIELLO,
Deputy Warden
at HSC, in his individual and official
capacities; WARDEN LYNN CORRY,
Warden at R.I. D.O.C., in her
individual and official capacities; LT.
STEVEN SARITILLI,
Lieutenant at
HSC, in his individual and official
capacities; VANESSA LISI,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
C.A. No. 26-283-JJM-PAS
Case 1:26-cv-00283-JJM-PAS Document 5 Filed 05/14/26 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
Classification Specialist for R.I. D.O.C.,
in her individual and official
capacities; LYNSEY MCNAMARA,
Qualified Mental Health Physician at
HSC,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ORDER
Devonte Lewis has filed, along with his Complaint, a Motion to Proceed
In
Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) (ECF No. 2). The filing of that Motion creates an obligation
on the part of the Court to determine whether the Complaint states a plausible
federal claim for relief.
	Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 667 (2009) (plausible claim
standard); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) (screening required). 	For the reasons stated
below, the Court dismisses most of the claims and Defendants but finds a plausible
claim of excessive force and failure to protect in violation of the Eighth Amendment
to the United States Constitution, against two Defendants. The Complaint therefore
passes initial screening, but Mr. Lewis has failed, through the provision of his Inmate
Account Statement (ECF No. 4) to demonstrate indigency and he therefore must
prepay the filing fee of $350.
The Sufficiency of the Complaint
Mr. Lewis sets forth three separate situations, giving rise, he maintains, to
claims for violations of his constitutional rights. 	First, he maintains in an over-
generalization that there is “a systemic culture and custom of violence and abuse of
inmates by D.O.C. [Department of Corrections] personnel at HSC [High Security
Center], wherein nearly all staff take part in or engage in a corrupt pattern of silence
Case 1:26-cv-00283-JJM-PAS Document 5 Filed 05/14/26 Page 2 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
or action to conceal.” ECF No. 1 ¶ 30. This allegation is presumably made to support
liability against the administrative staff, Defendants Director Salisbury, Warden
Corry, and Deputy Warden Jason Masiello, as well as some of the Defendant
Lieutenants named in the caption. 	The allegation, however, is unsupported by any
specific plausible facts. 	It is made only in conclusive language, which does not
support a plausible claim.
	Ponsa-Rabell v. Santander Sec. LLC, 35 F.4th 26, 30 n.2,
32 (1st Cir. 2022) (conclusive allegations unsupported by material facts may be
ignored, but the Plaintiff is entitled to have the Court accept as true the plausible
factual allegations he makes). Mere supervisory responsibility is not enough to plead
a constitutional violation on the part of the superiors.
	Sanchez v. Pereira-Castillo,
590 F.3d 31, 49 (1st Cir. 2009).
While it may seem to Mr. Lewis, and the prison population, that the individual
incidents they complain about in the many federal lawsuits filed could not happen in
the absence of some implicit acceptance from the administrative staff, speculation
does not make it plausible. That kind of claim is far more difficult to prosecute – for
attorneys, much less
pro se litigants – than one alleging a specific unlawful action
committed by a particular individual.
The second situation alleged involves an incident on or about August 23, 2025,
when Defendant Oliver came to Mr. Lewis’ cell to search, less than two hours after
he had searched it already. 	Mr. Lewis maintains he was calm and subdued, but
verbally protested the second search. In response, Defendant Oliver asked, “Are you
going to sue me again?” He then allegedly struck Mr. Lewis, put him in a chokehold,
Case 1:26-cv-00283-JJM-PAS Document 5 Filed 05/14/26 Page 3 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
slammed him to the ground, beat, stomped, and kicked him. He then put him in his
cell, denying him medical attention for two hours. 	Mr. Lewis states he suffered
concussion, pain in his shoulder, bruising, swelling, and lacerations. 	He further
alleges that Defendant Lt. Reed was present, observed what happened, refused to
intervene, and commented, “that’s what happens when you sue us.”
Mr. Lewis has pled enough facts which, if accepted as true (which the Court
must do at this stage), raise an inference that Correctional Officer (“CO”) Oliver
applied force “maliciously and sadistically to cause harm” rather than to restore order
or maintain discipline.
Wilkins v. Gaddy, 559 U.S. 34, 37 (2010). The application of
force in the absence of a security or safety need, when inflicted in a way that raises
an inference of malice, violates the Eighth Amendment.
Id.
The Complaint sets out a claim of “failure to protect” against Lt. Reed who was
allegedly present during the entire incident and witnessed it. Such a claim has four
elements: that an official knows of an excessive and serious risk to inmate health or
safety, can protect the inmate from that risk, deliberately disregards that risk, and
fails to intervene.
Calderon-Ortiz v. LaBoy-Alvarado, 300 F.3d 60, 64 (1st Cir. 2002),
(citing
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837-40 (1994)). Here, all the elements are
directly pled except whether Lt. Reed had the opportunity to protect Mr. Lewis. But
there is an inescapable inference that this incident, if it occurred at all, went on for a
significant period, during which Lt. Reed was allegedly present. And because he is a
superior officer, the inference is also inescapable that he could have taken some action
to protect Mr. Lewis from what is alleged to have been serious injuries. 	There has
Case 1:26-cv-00283-JJM-PAS Document 5 Filed 05/14/26 Page 4 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
also been pled, because of the alleged remarks, plausible claims of retaliation,
violating Mr. Lewis’ First Amendment right to access to the courts.
Staples v. Gerry,
923 F.3d 7, 15 (1st Cir. 2019).
Third, Mr. Lewis names several defendants who, in the aftermath of the
incident, allegedly violated his rights. He alleges that medical treatment was refused
him, or at least delayed substantially, but does not state what person took that action
and what that person was aware of. 	At a minimum, those assertions would be
necessary. 	He faults the officer who presided at his grievance hearing (Ms. B.
Gallagher), a classification specialist who presumably participated in the review of
his status in the Restorative Housing Program (“RHP”) (Vanessa Lisi), and a member
of the medical staff (Lynsey McNamara) whose acts he does not describe at all. 	But
violations of prison rules, such as the grievance rules and the classification criteria of
the RHP do not generally present federal claims for relief.
	Devine v. Cumberland
County Jail, 2:19-cv-00323-JDL, 2019 WL 3845378, at *2 (D. Me. Aug. 15, 2019),
adopted 2019 WL 5580219 (Oct. 29, 2019) (violation of prison grievance rules does
not state an actionable federal claim);
Beaulieu v. Wrenn, Civ. No. 14-cv-280-SM,
2014 WL 4163147, at *3 (D.N.H. Aug. 20, 2014),
adopted 2014 WL 4851341 (Sept. 20,
2014) (failure to follow prison policies did not state plausible claim of denial of
federally-protected right).
There are no details at all pled in support of any action for inadequate medical
care except the allegation that he was made to wait two hours by some unspecified
Case 1:26-cv-00283-JJM-PAS Document 5 Filed 05/14/26 Page 5 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
person. Nor are there any allegations at all about the adequacy of the medical care
he was ultimately provided, if any.
No plausible claims of denial of federally-protected rights are made against
any named defendants other than Defendants CO Oliver and Lt. Reed. 	While the
Complaint implies, by once using the plural “defendants” in connection with the
alleged beating, that more officers may have participated, no specific actions are pled
against any of the others. All claims against all defendants other than CO Oliver and
Lt. Reed are DISMISSED. The claims that are allowed to go forward are an excessive
force claim against Defendant CO Oliver and a failure to protect claim against
Defendant Lt. Reed, both constituting violations of the Eighth Amendment if proven.
Waiver of Filing Fee
An examination of Mr. Lewis’ Inmate Account statement demonstrates that he
is financially able to prepay the $350 filing fee required. 	His Motion to Proceed
In
Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 2) is DENIED. 	He is required to process payment of the
entire filing fee within 30 days after the date of this Order, or the Complaint will be
dismissed.
Amendment
Mr. Lewis may choose, once he pays the filing fee, to accept this Order and
proceed with the two claims made against Defendants CO Oliver and Lt. Reed. 	In
that case, the next step will be a response by the defendants. 	Or, within 30 days of
the date of this Order and payment of the filing fee, he may file an Amended
Complaint that attempts to set forth plausible versions of the claims dismissed here.
Case 1:26-cv-00283-JJM-PAS Document 5 Filed 05/14/26 Page 6 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

7
The Court expresses no view on the merits of those claims, except to caution that, as
Mr. Lewis knows from previous cases, it is difficult for
pro se litigants to navigate
Rules 	of 	Procedure 	and 	prosecute 	federal 	cases. 	The 	greater 	the 	number 	of
defendants and the more complex the claims, the harder it is.
Motion to Appoint Counsel
As this Complaint stands now, and even if it is amended, the Court declines to
appoint counsel at this stage of the case, although there is discretion to do so.
Desrosiers v. Moran, 949 F.2d 15, 23 (1st Cir. 1991).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/John J. McConnell, Jr.
_________________________________
JOHN J. MCCONNELL, JR.
Chief Judge
United States District Court
May 14, 2026
Case 1:26-cv-00283-JJM-PAS Document 5 Filed 05/14/26 Page 7 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>