Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
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.

Dailey v. Knight

United States District Court, D. Connecticut

January 30, 2017

ERNEST DAILEY, Plaintiff,
v.
URSULA KNIGHT, et al., Defendants.

          INIITAL REVIEW ORDER

          Victor A. Bolden United States District Judge.

         Plaintiff, 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 defendants.

         I. Standard of Review

         Under 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).

         Although 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 570.

         II. Allegations

         On 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) (referencing diagnosis).

         On 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.

         On June 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 treatment. Id.

         On 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

         III. Discussion

         According 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.

         Although 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 disability).

         Mr. 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 ...


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.