UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Derek Potocki

v. Civil No. 07-cv-071-SM

Warren Dowaliby, Superintendent,

Strafford County House of

Corrections, et al.

O R D E R

Derek Potocki has filed a civil rights complaint, pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking relief for unconstitutional

treatment he alleges that he received during his incarceration at

the Strafford County House of Correction (“SCHC”). The matter is

before me for preliminary review to determine whether, among

other things, the complaint states a cause of action upon which

relief might be granted. See United States District Court for

the District of New Hampshire Local Rule (“LR”) 4.3(d)(2); 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 

Background

Potocki alleges that while incarcerated at the SCHC, he was

subjected to excessive force and harassment by two corrections

officers, and denied humane conditions of confinement. 

Specifically, he alleges that he was punched in the head,

verbally harassed, denied showers and clean clothing for days on

end, denied a clean and nonhazardous cell, denied bedding, denied

Case 1:07-cv-00071-SM Document 7 Filed 08/16/07 Page 1 of 4
2

any ability to leave his cell or exercise, and that the toilet in

his cell was clogged and nonfunctional for seven days. 

Discussion

It is unclear from his complaint whether Potocki was a

pretrial detainee or sentenced inmate at the time the events he

describes occurred. If he was a pretrial detainee, Potocki’s

challenges to the conditions of his detention arise under the

Fourteenth Amendment. See, e.g., Lyons v. Powell, 838 F.2d 28,

29 (1st Cir. 1988) (per curiam) (rejecting an Eighth Amendment

challenge to pretrial detention). “‘[T]he State does not acquire

the power to punish, with which the Eighth Amendment is

concerned, until after it has secured a formal adjudication of

guilt in accordance with due process of law.’” Martinez-Rivera

v. Ramos, ___ F.3d ___, 2007 WL 2254586, *4 (1st Cir. 2007)

(quoting Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651, 671-72 n.40 (1977)). 

Detainees have a constitutional right under the due process

clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to be free of punishment. See

Surprenant v. Rivas, 424 F.3d 5, 15 (1st Cir. 2005) (citing

O’Connor v. Huard, 117 F.3d 12, 15 (1st Cir. 1997)). However,

challenged conditions or restrictions which can be rationally

related to some legitimate administrative goal or security

Case 1:07-cv-00071-SM Document 7 Filed 08/16/07 Page 2 of 4
3

concern generally will not be deemed unconstitutional

“punishment.” O’Connor, 117 F.3d at 15. Because the Due Process

Clause prohibits the infliction of punishment on a person prior

to a judgment of conviction, the issue in evaluating claims by a

pretrial detainee is ultimately whether the conditions of

confinement were reasonably related to a legitimate state

interest or were intended instead as punishment. See Surprenant,

424 F.3d at 13; Collazo-Leon v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, 51 F.3d

315, 317 (1st Cir. 1995). 

Prison conditions for sentenced inmates are scrutinized

under the Eighth Amendment, which protects against the infliction

of cruel and unusual punishment. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S.

825, 832 (1994); Burrell v. Hampshire County, 307 F.3d 1, 7 (1st

Cir. 2002). The Eighth Amendment prohibits any punishment which

violates civilized standards of decency or involves the

“unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.” Ingraham, 430 U.S.

at 670 (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 102-03 (1976)).

I cannot determine from the facts alleged in the complaint

whether or not Potocki was a pretrial or convicted inmate at the

time of the occurrences he complains of in this action. Having

reviewed Potocki’s claims, however, I find that this information

Case 1:07-cv-00071-SM Document 7 Filed 08/16/07 Page 3 of 4
4

is relevant to my initial evaluation of the claims. If, as here,

the Court requires additional information to determine whether a

cognizable claim has been filed, the Court may order a pro se

party to file an amended filing. See LR 4.3(d)(2)(B)

(authorizing the magistrate judge to order plaintiff to file

amended pleading). 

Conclusion

Because I find that additional information is necessary to

conduct a preliminary review of this matter, Potocki is ordered

to amend his complaint within twenty days of today’s date, to

advise the Court as to whether, at the time of the events

described in his complaint, he was a pretrial detainee or a

sentenced inmate. Upon submission of the requested information,

the complaint will be preliminarily reviewed.

SO ORDERED.

/s/ Justo Arenas 

Justo Arenas

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: August 16, 2007

cc: Derek Potocki, pro se

Case 1:07-cv-00071-SM Document 7 Filed 08/16/07 Page 4 of 4