continued...
6.Plaintiff alleges that she was sexually harassed when a CO watched her change clothing and “participated in voyeurism.” (Doc. 1, at 15.) Plaintiff claims it was not properly investigated, the issue escalated, and she was sexually assaulted in the shower in October 2023. (Doc. 1, at 15.) Plaintiff alleges that she was told that there were no cameras in the shower, and although the CO entered into the shower as part of the policy for showering, he did not have the right to re-enter or “hang out” in the area.
7. Plaintiff alleges that she was retaliated against for reporting the PREA issue and her job was taken away. However, an “inmate claiming retaliation must allege specific facts showing retaliation because of the exercise of the prisoner's constitutional rights.” Thus, for this type of claim, “it is imperative that plaintiff's pleading be factual and not conclusory. Mere allegations of constitutional retaliation will not suffice.” Plaintiff suggests in her grievances that she was denied a job and received a false disciplinary report after making her PREA report and other reports against staff. She also claims that she was retaliated against for filing a habeas action and civil action, by being subjected to continued cell searches, the denial of mental health for going to the library, a violation of due process for grievances, and a frivolous disciplinary report.
8.Plaintiff claims that a staff member at TCF was angry that doors were opened in Pod 1B and began yelling and slamming doors. Plaintiff claims that as she was leaving aerobics her hand was hanging out of the door and the staff member slammed the door on Plaintiff's right ring finger. Plaintiff acknowledges that she received medical care for her finger but alleges that the facility failed to follow its own policy for reporting the incident.
9. Plaintiff acknowledges that a grievance procedure is in place and that she used it. She claims that responses to grievances were untimely and “incompetent.” “All grievances have been responded with incompetent answers.”). Any claim relating to Plaintiff's dissatisfaction with responses to her grievances is subject to dismissal.
Plaintiff filed a motion requesting a preliminary injunction. Plaintiff asks the Court to release her from custody in Kansas and to return her to Colorado. Plaintiff alleges that the CDOC Secretary of Corrections transferred her to Kansas knowing the transfer would deprive her of life's necessities and/or place her in a substantial risk of harm. Plaintiff alleges that the defendant transferred her in retaliation for filing complaints and grievances. Plaintiff alleges that she was transferred to Kansas and placed in a higher custody level. Plaintiff alleges that defendants knew Plaintiff would not be successful in Kansas because they were aware that another inmate transferred to Kansas experienced similar issues and was denied proper medical care. Plaintiff also alleges that she was transferred to Kansas to deny her access to the courts because TCF does not have an adequate law library or resources. Plaintiff alleges that TCF does not allow her to practice her religion with Kosher meals and does not provide adequate mental healthcare.
rot away, Letecia.
