Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Narcisse v. Semple

United States District Court, D. Connecticut

December 12, 2016

SCOTT SEMPLE, et al ., Defendants.

          ORDER OF DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)

          Jeffrey Alker Meyer United States District Judge.

         Plaintiff Marvin M. Narcisse is confined at the Whiting Forensic Division of the Connecticut Valley Hospital. See Narcisse v. Dalphine, 2016 WL 6963024, at *1 (D. Conn. 2016) (describing circumstances leading to plaintiff's involuntary hospitalization). He has filed a complaint pro se and in forma pauperis under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that his treating physicians did not warn him about the negative effects of Risperdal, one of his prescribed psychiatric medications. After an initial review, the Court concludes that the complaint should be dismissed for three reasons: (1) plaintiff's failure to identify any personal involvement in the alleged constitutional violations by any of the three named defendants in this action; (2) plaintiff's failure to allege facts that would plausibly support a claim of malicious or deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs (as distinct from simple negligence); and (3) plaintiff's failure to allege facts that occurred within the limitations period for bringing his claim.


         Plaintiff names three defendants: Scott Semple, Commissioner of the Department of Correction; Meriam D. Rittman, Commissioner of the Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services; and Daniel Wartenberg, the CEO of the Bridgeport Mental Health Center. Doc. #1 at 3-4. The complaint has four paragraphs setting forth the following allegations:

         Statement of claim

All the facility's that prescribed me Risperdal are liable for my many side effects.
1) The doctors are at fault by not warning me about the side effects of Risperdal that's malpractice.
2) Negligence is also a factor on the facilities of hiring doctors that are in competent of following there code of ethics by not giving me my constitutional right to choose if I want to take Risperdal with the knowledge of all those side effects.
3) I suffer from disfigurement, due to the on safe levels of prolactin that me grow large breast 4) Mental distress being a man living with extremely large breast ruined my body for life, my confidence is non-existence I go in deep depression continuously

Doc. #1 at 7.

         Attached to the complaint are numerous medical records concerning plaintiff's diagnosis and treatment for gynecomastia-a medical condition involving the swelling of breast tissue, allegedly caused by plaintiff's taking of Risperdal. According to one of the records attached to the complaint, “[p]atient indicates that he first developed this disorder [gynecomastia] after taking Risperdal in 2010.” Id. at 19.


         A district court must dismiss an in forma pauperis action if it determines that the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Plaintiff was found not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect and was subsequently civilly committed. Accordingly, he is not necessarily a “prisoner” within the definition of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and his complaint is not subject to the screening requirements under § 1915A. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(c). Nevertheless, his complaint remains subject to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), which governs all proceedings in forma pauperis.. In determining whether a case is subject to dismissal, it is well-established that “pro se complaints must be construed liberally and interpreted to raise the strongest arguments that they suggest.” Sykes v. Bank of Am., 723 F.3d 399, 403 (2d Cir. 2013). Still, even a pro se complaint must plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).

         Plaintiff brings this case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which creates a federal cause of action against any person who, under color of state law, deprives a citizen or a person within the jurisdiction of the United States of any right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States. 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Although plaintiff names three administrative officials as defendants, he does not name any doctor or other medical personnel who was alleged to be involved with the prescription or administration to him of Risperdal. The complaint states nothing about any of ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.