United States District Court, D. Connecticut
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER
Michael P. Shea United States District Judge.
Roland Madore, currently incarcerated at the Osborn
Correctional Institution in Somers, Connecticut, filed this
case pro se under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 asserting
claims for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need.
The plaintiff names as defendants Commissioner Scott Semple,
Nurse Dwiller, Gary Freston, Monica Faranella, Sayeed Naqvi,
Johnny Wu, Richard Furey, Dr. Ruiz, and Correctional Officer
Hammond. He seeks damages and injunctive relief. The
complaint was received by the Court on January 27, 2017. The
plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis
was granted on February 1, 2017. (ECF No. 6.)
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
that 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 [they] suggest.”
Abbas v. Dixon, 480 F.3d 636, 639 (2d Cir. 2007).
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 plausible 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
Semple has entered a contract with Johnny Wu of the
University of Connecticut Health Center to form Correctional
Managed Health Care (“CMHC”), which provides
medical service to all Connecticut inmates. As part of the
contract, Commissioner Semple agreed to assume liability for
any judgments against CMHC regarding inmate medical and
dental care. CMHC, through defendants Wu, Freston, Faranella
and Naqvi, has developed a Utilization Review Committee
(“URC”) that denies all requests for services at
the University of Connecticut Health Center. Inmates must
file medical habeas petitions in state court before they can
obtain needed medical services.
August 2, 2014, the plaintiff requested a sleep apnea test.
On August 6, 2014, Nurse Dwiller told the plaintiff that,
according to his medical chart, he had been diagnosed with
sleep apnea in 2013. The plaintiff contends that this is
September 25, 2014, Dr. Wright ordered a pulse oximeter study
to measure the amount of oxygen in the plaintiff's blood.
The test had to be performed twice, on September 30, 2014,
and again on October 7, 2014, because the test machine
November 4, 2014, defendants Wu, Faranella and Naqvi denied
Dr. Wright's request for a sleep study at the University
of Connecticut Health Center. On January 13, 2015, the
plaintiff filed a medical habeas action in state court
seeking a sleep study, hernia surgery, and a mouth guard. On
January 28, 2015, the plaintiff went to the University of
Connecticut Health Center for the sleep study, which revealed
severe obstruction sleep apnea. Defendants Wu, Faranella and
Naqvi denied requests for a sleeping wedge or double pillows.
February 18, 2015, Dr. Wright requested a sleep apnea
machine, or C-PAP machine, for the plaintiff. On March 6,
2015, a C-PAP machine was delivered to the plaintiff. He
refused the machine because it did not have a humidifier. On
March 30, 2015, a C-PAP machine was delivered to the
plaintiff. Again, he returned the machine because it did not
have a humidifier.
21, 2015, the plaintiff met with Dr. Wright who appealed the
denial of a C-PAP machine with a humidifier. On June 8, 2015,
Dr. Wright told the plaintiff that the University of
Connecticut Health Center had approved a C-PAP machine with a
humidifier. The plaintiff received the machine on June 18,
2015, but it had the wrong pressure. On July 15, 2015, the
plaintiff still needed a machine adjusted to the proper
pressure. On August 11, 2015, he wrote a letter asking about
the status of the machine. Nurse Lewis said she would discuss
it with Dr. Wright. The plaintiff finally received the
correct C-PAP machine sometime in September or October 2015.
February 2, 2014, the plaintiff wrote to the medical
department at Cheshire Correctional Institution complaining
about pain from a lump in the area of his navel. On February
7, 2014, the plaintiff saw Dr. Ruiz and received a binder.
Dr. Ruiz refused the plaintiff's request that he submit a
request for surgery to the Utilization Review Committee,
stating that the Department of Correction would not provide
January 13, 2015, the plaintiff filed a medical habeas action
in state court. On June 29, 2015, the plaintiff submitted a
grievance about his abdominal hernia, stating that it caused
pain and bathroom issues. The plaintiff also remarked that
Drs. Wright and Ruiz had told him that it was highly unlikely
that the University of ...