United States District Court, D. Connecticut
MARVIN M. NARCISSE, Plaintiff,
SCOTT SEMPLE, et al ., Defendants.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §
Jeffrey Alker Meyer United States District Judge.
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.
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:
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
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
Doc. #1 at 7.
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.
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
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 ...