United States District Court, D. Connecticut
INIITAL REVIEW ORDER
A. Bolden United States District Judge.
Ernest Dailey, currently incarcerated at the
Corrigan-Radgowski Correctional Center, filed this complaint
pro se under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on June 27, 2016.
Mr. Dailey's complaint was received on October 27, 2016,
and his motion to proceed in forma pauperis was
granted on November 4, 2016. The defendants are Medical
Supervisor Ursula Knight, Dr. Figura, Nurse Amy, Supervisor
Raquel Lightner, Supervisor Greene, Dr. Pillai, Dr. Naqvi,
and Kevin McCrystal. Mr. Dailey alleges that the defendants
have been deliberately indifferent to his serious medical
needs. He seeks damages and injunctive relief from the
Standard of Review
section 1915A of title 28 of the United States Code, the
Court 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 seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is
immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. In
reviewing a pro se complaint, the Court must assume
the truth of the allegations, and interpret them liberally to
“raise the strongest arguments that they
suggest.” Sykes v. Bank of Am., 723 F.3d 399,
403 (2d Cir. 2013); see also Tracy v. Freshwater,
623 F.3d 90, 101-02 (2d Cir. 2010) (discussing special rules
of solicitude for pro se litigants).
detailed allegations are not required, this Complaint must
include sufficient facts to afford 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
October 2, 2014, Mr. Dailey wrote to Dr. O'Halloran
because he allegedly had not received the medication for his
skin condition for eleven days. Compl., ECF No. 1, ¶ 1.
On March 1, 2015, Mr. Dailey wrote to defendants Dr. Naqvi
and Raquel Lightner several times with no response.
Id. at ¶ 2. Prison officials ignored the
request, later denied it, and later renewed it, only for it
to be denied again. Id. Generally, Mr. Dailey
alleges that the prescribed creams are sometimes issued by
the pharmacy once per month, but that he does not usually
have enough to last him the whole month. See CN-9601
(Jan. 1, 2016) (alleging that one tube of cream “goes
fast within two days”); CN-6901 (April 28, 2015)
(“Again I don't have any creams for
treatment”); 9601 (Sept. 14, 2016) (“Now being
refused to order the cream I need as weeks go by”).
Thus, Mr. Dailey allegedly is forced to go without his
medication for two weeks each month. Mr. Dailey's
condition, initially diagnosed as psoriasis, has gotten
worse. See Compl., p. 6; CN-9601 (May 10, 2015)
February 16, 2016, Mr. Dailey allegedly wrote to Defendant
nurse Nikia because he had dark black spots on his legs.
Compl. ¶ 4. He asked to be seen as soon as possible.
Id. Prison Officials allegedly did not arrange for
Mr. Dailey to be examined until March 29, 2016. He contends
that, as a result of this delay, he suffers “great
itchy pain.” Id. On February 20, 2016, Mr.
Dailey allegedly wrote to Defendant Dr. Pillai about his
medication, and Dr. Pillai allegedly ignored the request.
Compl. ¶ 3. Mr. Dailey alleges that his skin condition
has worsened and he now has severely itchy bumps and scabs
and his skin has turned black, red, purple, and green.
Id. at ¶ 4.
5, 2016, Mr. Dailey allegedly wrote to defendant Dr. Figura
about the diagnosis of the rash on his upper body, legs, and
arms. Compl. ¶ 5. He allegedly noted that the rash had
begun to ooze pus. Id. Mr. Dailey alleges that the
sores on his legs bleed all of the time. Id. His
request for help was delayed until after June 15, 2016.
Id. He alleges that he was placed on the sick call
list, which meant that the facility provided no further
October 14, 2016, Mr. Dailey allegedly wrote to the warden
and deputy warden, both Defendants, about his medical
concerns. Compl. ¶ 6. They allegedly did nothing.
Id. Mr. Dailey further alleges that he suffers from
arthritis and that the arthritis medication also runs out.
Compl., p. 6
to Mr. Dailey, all Defendants have been deliberately
indifferent to his serious medical needs in two ways. First,
he claims not to have been provided sufficient amounts of
cream to treat his condition each month. Second, he claims
not to have been referred to a dermatologist.
he states that his brings this action under Section 1983, on
the complaint form, Mr. Dailey references the Americans with
Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101,
et seq. To state a claim under the ADA, Mr. Dailey must
allege that he is a qualified individual with a disability,
and that he was excluded from participation in or denied the
benefits of services, programs, or activities because of his
disability. Hargrave v. Vermont, 342 F.3d 27, 34-35
(2d Cir. 2003). The “mistreatment [must have been]
motivated by either discriminatory animus or ill will due to
disability.” Garcia v. University of Connecticut
Health Center, No. 3:16-CV-852(JCH), 2016 WL 5844463, at
*2 (D. Conn. Sept. 29, 2016). Courts routinely dismiss ADA
suits by disabled inmates that allege inadequate medical
treatment but do not allege that the inmate was treated
differently because of his disability. Id.; see,
e.g., Nails v. Laplante, 596 F.Supp.2d 475, 481-82 (D.
Conn. 2009) (dismissing inmate's ADA claim based on
inadequate medical care because plaintiff did not include any
non-conclusory allegations of discrimination based on
disability and identified no program he was unable to
participate in or service he was denied because of his
Dailey alleges that he is disabled as a result of a stroke.
He alleges no facts suggesting that the delay in obtaining
medication and failure to refer him to a dermatologist were
in any way related to ...