United States District Court, D. Connecticut
RULING ON PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS FROM DEFENDANTS
FAUCHER AND HOLLIS (ECF No. 16)
A. BOLDEN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Jessica Timm, a resident of Monroe, Connecticut, filed this
action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and § 1988, naming
Stephen Faucher, M. Connell, APRN, Vivianne Hage, RN, Tara
Hood, NP, Henry F. Crabbe, MD, Christine Bachmann, and CO
Hollis, all employees of the Connecticut Department of
Correction, as Defendants. Ms. Timm alleges that Defendants
violated her Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and
unusual punishment while she was incarcerated in York
Correctional Institution (“York”) in 2015.
Faucher, who was Warden at York during the relevant time
period, and Mr. Hollis, who was a Correctional Officer at
York, have moved to dismiss Ms. Timm's claims against
them. For the reasons set forth below,
Defendants' motion is GRANTED.
January 20, 2015, Ms. Timm was sentenced by the Connecticut
Superior Court to serve a term of 45 days in the York
Correctional Institution in Niantic, Connecticut for
operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of
alcohol or drugs. Compl. ¶ 6. Prison officials then
transported Ms. Timm to York to serve her 45-day sentence.
Id. at ¶ 7.
Timm alleges that officials at York received instructions
from the Superior Court as well as a letter from her
physician upon her arrival. Id. at ¶ 8. The
documents stated that Ms. Timm suffered from multiple mental
and physical health issues. Id. Specifically, they
relayed that she had been severely assaulted, which caused
permanent physical and mental health disabilities, including
chronic and acute pancreatitis, re-occurring fistulas
requiring continuous treatment and care, multiple abdominal
surgeries and abdominal drainage issues, severe allergies,
chronic nausea, depression, post-traumatic disorder, and
chronic internal and external pain. Id. Ms. Timm
contends that Defendants were thus notified, through receipt
of the court's instructions and the letter from her
physician, of her serious medical needs. Id. Ms.
Timm further alleges that she was placed in Defendants'
care and custody and that they had “direct, immediate,
ongoing personal responsibility for, and involvement with,
her.” Id. at ¶ 9.
Timm alleges that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to
her serious medical needs when she was incarcerated at York
from January 20, 2015 to February 27, 2015. Id. at
¶ 10. Ms. Timm specifically argues that Defendants
“denied her the special diet and some of the
medications she required, refused to permit her to utilize
prescription medications she brought with her” to York,
and “refused to change her dressings as was medically
required.” Id. Ms. Timm argues that Defendants
had actual knowledge of and personal responsibility for her
multiple serious medical needs, but still caused serious harm
to her. Id.
Timm further alleges that Mr. Hollis “berated and
threatened [her] in the presence of other correctional
staff[, ]” causing “severe and foreseeable
emotional distress, fear and anguish.” Id. at
¶ 11. Ms. Timm claims that she “suffered mental
and physical pain, and was re-traumatized from her prior
assault” as the consequence of Defendants' actions
and inactions. Id. at ¶ 12. Ms. Timm argues
that Defendants subjected her to cruel and unusual punishment
in violation of her Eight Amendment rights. Id. at
¶ 13. She seeks judgment against each Defendant, jointly
and severally, for compensatory and punitive damages, as well
as attorney's fees and costs. Id.
Standard of Review
order to survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a
claim under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), a complaint must contain
“sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state
a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “A
claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads
factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
alleged.” Id. In determining whether a
complaint states a plausible entitlement to legal relief, the
Court must accept all factual allegations in the complaint as
true and draw all reasonable inferences from those
allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.
See Nechis v. Oxford Health Plans, Inc., 421 F.3d
96, 100 (2d Cir. 2005).
“plausibility standard” is guided by “[t]wo
working principles.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
First, the requirement that a court accept as true the
allegations in a complaint “‘is inapplicable to
legal conclusions, ' and ‘[t]hreadbare recitals of
the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere
conclusory statements, do not suffice.'” Harris
v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir. 2009) (quoting
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678). Second, to survive a motion
to dismiss, the claim for relief alleged in the complaint
must be plausible. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679.
Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for
relief is “a context specific task that requires the
reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common
Faucher and Hollis have moved to dismiss Ms. Timm's
Complaint, arguing that she has failed to allege a plausible
claim of supervisory liability as to Mr. Faucher and has
failed to allege any constitutional violation against Mr.
Hollis. Defendants also argue that Ms. Timm is precluded from
bringing her claim by the Prison Litigation Reform Act
(“PLRA”). Ms. Timm opposes the partial motion to
dismiss, arguing that Mr. Faucher was deliberately
indifferent to her medical needs, in violation of the Eighth
Amendment. Ms. Timm also argues that Mr. Hollis's actions
rose to the level of constitutional violations because of his
knowledge of her exceptional vulnerability and that the
Prison Litigation Reform Act does not preclude her claim.
Court agrees with Defendants. Ms. Timm has not stated a
plausible claim for deliberate indifference against Mr.
Faucher. Moreover, Ms. Timm does not allege a constitutional
violation upon which relief can be granted against Mr.
Hollis. The ...