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.

Artis v. Nancy

United States District Court, D. Connecticut

December 15, 2016

TROY ARTIS, Plaintiff,
MS. NANCY, et al., Defendants.


          Stefan R. Underhill United States District Judge

         Troy Artis is incarcerated at MacDougall Correctional Institution (“MacDougall”). He has filed a civil rights action, pro se, naming Ms. Nancy, Mr. Rodriguez, Ms. Lightner, Ms. Heidi Green, Mr. Pillai and Mr. Rosenberg as defendants. For the reasons set forth below, the complaint is dismissed.

         Under section 1915A of Title 28 of the United States Code, I must review prisoner civil complaints and dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, that 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. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 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).

         Although detailed allegations are not required, the complaint must include sufficient facts to afford the defendants fair notice of the claims and the grounds upon which they are based and to demonstrate a right to relief. Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-56 (2007). Conclusory allegations are not sufficient. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). The plaintiff must plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. Nevertheless, it is well-established that “[p]ro 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) (quoting Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474 (2d Cir. 2006)); see also Tracy v. Freshwater, 623 F.3d 90, 101-02 (2d Cir. 2010) (discussing special rules of solicitude for pro se litigants).

         Artis alleges that, on April 11, 2016, he received a notification of test results from a nurse at Enfield Correctional Institution. On July 7, 2016, he sought treatment in the Enfield medical unit for a tingling sensation in his left arm, elbow and upper shoulder due to inflammation caused by shoulder injury.

         Prison officials transferred Artis to MacDougall at some point on July 7, 2016. After his arrival at MacDougall, he sent a written request to Ms. Green to find out why he had been transferred to MacDougall. On July 8, 2016, the plaintiff filed a health service review seeking treatment for shoulder pain. A medical provider denied his request for treatment.

         On July 11, 2016, prison officials at MacDougall posted a notice regarding the side effects of nonsteroidal, anti-inflammatory drugs. Artis sent a “Legal Notice of Suit” to Ms. Lightner, but she did not respond to the notice. On July 27, 2016, Artis filed a request for health service seeking treatment for his shoulder pain.

         On August 4, 2016, Artis sought treatment for side effects of Naproxen, a medication that a medical provider had prescribed for him. On August 11, 2016, Artis sent a “Legal Affidavit” Ms. Lightner regarding a violation of Administrative Directive 8.1, Scope of Health Service Care.

         The plaintiff filed grievances on July 8, 2016, and July 28, 2016, seeking medical treatment. He did not receive responses to the grievances. On August 25, 2016, he filed an appeal seeking written responses to the grievances. A copy of the appeal is attached to the complaint. Although Artis makes reference to various exhibits, no other exhibits are attached to the complaint.

         I. Official Capacity Claims

         For relief, Artis requests compensatory and punitive damages. To the extent that Artis seeks damages from the defendants in their official capacities, the claims are barred by the Eleventh Amendment. See Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159 (1985); Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 342 (1979). Those claims are dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(2).

         II. Defendants Nancy, Rodriguez, Pillai and Rosenberg

         Artis identifies Ms. Nancy as the Medical Records Secretary at Enfield, and Mr. Rodriguez as the Deputy Warden of Operations and Medical at Enfield. Mr. Pillai is identified as a physician at MacDougall, and Mr. Rosenberg is identified as a nurse at Enfield. Artis lists those defendants in the description of the parties on page two of the complaint, but does not otherwise mention them in the body of the complaint.

         Artis has not asserted facts to suggest that any of those defendants was deliberately indifferent to his medical needs or otherwise violated his federally or constitutionally protected rights. All claims against defendants Nancy, Rodriguez, Pillai and ...

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.