United States District Court, D. Connecticut
RULING AND ORDER
VANESSA L. BRYANT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
plaintiff, Tamira Durand, is currently confined at Carswell
Federal Medical Center in Fort Worth, Texas (“FMC
Carswell”). She has filed a complaint pursuant to
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of
Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971)
(“Bivens”). She names Physician
Assistants Lidia Santini and Cesar Villa, Clinical Director
Irizarry (“Dr. Irizarry”) and Counselor Mancuso
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), a district court must review
prisoner civil complaints against governmental actors and
“dismiss ... any portion of [a] complaint [that] is
frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted, ” or that “seeks monetary
relief from a defendant who is immune from such
relief.” Id. Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure requires that a complaint contain “a
short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2).
detailed allegations are not required, “a complaint
must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to
state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. A
claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads
factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). A
complaint that includes only “‘labels and
conclusions, ' ‘a formulaic recitation of the
elements of a cause of action' or ‘naked
assertion[s]' devoid of ‘further factual
enhancement, '” does not meet the facial
plausibility standard. Id. (quoting Bell Atl.
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 557 (2007)).
Although courts still have an obligation to interpret
“a pro se complaint liberally, ” the
complaint must include sufficient factual allegations to meet
the standard of facial plausibility. See Harris v.
Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir. 2009) (citations
plaintiff asserts that on or about June 28, 2013, she injured
her left knee playing basketball at the Federal Correctional
Institution in Danbury, Connecticut (“FCI
Danbury”). A nurse diagnosed the plaintiff as suffering
from temporary knee and joint pain and issued her crutches.
At the time, the plaintiff was housed on the top tier and was
assigned a top bunk in her cell.
1, 2013, the plaintiff's knee was swollen and she could
not put any weight on it. Physician Assistant Santini did not
examine the plaintiff, but referred her for x-rays of her
left knee. On July 26, 2013, the plaintiff complained that
her knee was very painful and that it was difficult to climb
the stairs to reach her bunk. Physician Assistant Santini
noted that the x-rays showed no abnormalities. At the
plaintiff's request, Physician Assistant Santini referred
her to an orthopedist.
August 1, 2013, the plaintiff's knee buckled during her
shift in the food services department. A nurse gave her
medication for the pain in her knee. On August 27, 2013, a
nurse issued the plaintiff a knee brace.
September 10, 2013, Physician Assistant Villa treated the
plaintiff for diarrhea, but did not treat the plaintiff's
knee pain. On September 24, 2013, Physician Assistant Villa
treated the plaintiff for diarrhea and informed the plaintiff
that she was on the waiting list to see an orthopedist.
September 26, 2013, a nurse issued the plaintiff a temporary
bottom bunk pass. On September 30, 2013, the plaintiff
complained that her knee was still swollen and was locking
up. Physician Assistant Villa extended the plaintiff's
bottom bunk pass.
November 14, 2013, the plaintiff sought treatment for back
pain. A nurse noted that the plaintiff had undergone an MRI
in 2012 which showed bulging discs in her lower spine. The
nurse prescribed pain medication and gave the plaintiff a
pass so that she did not have to return to work. Later that
day, Physician Assistant Villa determined that the plaintiff
did not meet the criteria for a bottom bunk pass.
following day, the plaintiff complained of low back pain that
shot down her left leg and also numbness in her left foot.
Physician Assistant Villa administered an injection of
medication to the plaintiff's back, but refused to issue
her a bottom bunk pass. He directed the plaintiff to speak to
someone on “Mainline” regarding a bottom bunk
pass.” Compl., Doc. No. 1 at 13.
November 18, 2013, Dr. Irizarry examined the plaintiff. The
plaintiff complained of knee and back pain. Based on the
results of the x-rays of her knee, Dr. Irizarry ruled out an
injury to her knee ligaments. He did not believe the
plaintiff's complaints of back pain, did not notice the
notation regarding her prior history of bulging discs in her
lower spine and refused to issue her a bottom bunk pass.
November 25, 2013, Dr. Irizarry examined the plaintiff. When
he reviewed the plaintiff's medical chart, he noticed the
2012 MRI of the plaintiff's lower back that reflected
bulging discs. Based on the MRI results, he issued the
plaintiff a bottom bunk pass for thirty days.
December 20, 2013, Physician Assistant Villa extended the
plaintiff's lower bunk pass and referred her to a
neurologist. On December 29, 2013, the plaintiff experienced
severe pain in her back and down one of her legs as well as
weakness and an inability to walk. A physician examined the
plaintiff and administered an injection of medication to
relieve her symptoms.
December 31, 2013, the plaintiff's symptoms had not
subsided. Medical officials transferred the plaintiff to
Danbury Hospital for treatment. An MRI of the plaintiff's
lumbar spine revealed disc herniation and stenosis. The
plaintiff remained in the hospital for five days and received
various medications and injections to relieve the pain in her
officials released the plaintiff back to FCI Danbury on
January 4, 2014 with a prescription for medication and a
walker. On January 9, 2014, Dr. Izarry ...