Source: http://ri.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180226_0000033.DRI.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 22:40:16+00:00

Document:
While a plaintiff need not plead factual allegations in great detail, the allegations must be sufficiently precise to raise a right to relief beyond mere speculation. See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (abrogating the "no set of facts" rule of Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 44-45 (1957)). "The complaint must allege 'a plausible entitlement to relief in order to survive a motion to dismiss." Thomas v. Rhode Island, 542 F.3d 944, 948 (1st Cir. 2008) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 559). See also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 ("[w]hen there are well- pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief). The Court of Appeals has cautioned that the "plausibility" requirement is not akin to a "standard of likely success on the merits, " but instead, "the standard is plausibility assuming the pleaded facts to be true and read in a plaintiffs favor." Sepulveda-Villarini v. Dep't of Educ. of P.R., 628 F.3d 25, 30 (1st Cir. 2010).
In considering a motion to dismiss a prisoner's claim that his constitutional rights have been violated, the court must be guided by the principle that, while "prison officials are to be accorded substantial deference in the way they run their prisons, this does not mean that we will rubber stamp or mechanically accept the judgments of prison administrators." Spratt v. R.I. Dep't of Corr., 482 F.3d 33, 40 (1st Cir. 2007) (citation omitted). In addition, this Court has liberally reviewed Plaintiffs allegations and legal claims since they have been put forth by a pro se litigant. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-521 (1972).
The following facts are gleaned from Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint, and the Court assumes their veracity for purposes of the Motion to Dismiss. Defendants are correctional officers and prison administrators at the ACI, where Plaintiff is an inmate. Plaintiff was charged with a disciplinary infraction on May 10, 2015 for fighting with another inmate. (ECF Doc. No. 25-2 at p. 3.) On May 15, 2015, Plaintiff pled guilty and received a punishment of twenty-one days of solitary confinement and twenty-one days of loss of good-time credit. On May 15, 2015, Plaintiff also was charged with a disciplinary infraction for assault. Plaintiff asserts that charge also stemmed from his fight with the other inmate. On May 19, 2015, Plaintiff pled guilty to the assault charge. Id. at p. 4. Plaintiff received a punishment of eighty-nine days in punitive solitary confinement and eighty-nine days of loss of good-time credit for that infraction. Id. at p. 5.
When Plaintiff was approaching the end of his term in solitary confinement, he wrote a letter to another inmate asking the inmate to alert his family that he had nearly completed his period of solitary confinement and also asking for the inmate to get him a toothbrush. Id. Plaintiff was questioned by Investigator Cabral about the letter and claimed he only sought the toothbrush to brush his teeth after the lengthy period of time in solitary confinement with just a smaller toothbrush. On July 17, 2015, Plaintiff was charged with a disciplinary infraction for "mayhem" regarding his attempt to obtain the toothbrush. Id. at p. 6. Plaintiff pled not guilty at the disciplinary hearing and was found guilty and sentenced to eighty-nine days of punitive solitary confinement and eighty-nine days loss of good-time credit. Id. at p. 7. Plaintiff appealed that decision, and his appeal was denied. Id.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.