United States District Court, D. Connecticut
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER
MICHAEL P. SHEA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
plaintiff, Angel Gonzalez, is currently incarcerated at
MacDougall-Walker Correctional Institution
(“MacDougall-Walker”). He initiated this action
by filing a civil rights complaint against Department of
Correctional medical staff members. He has filed a motion to
amend, motion for default, and motion to expedite.
Motion to Amend [ECF No. 15]
plaintiff seeks to file an amended complaint to add ten new
defendants and eliminate seven defendants named in the
original complaint. Because the defendants have not filed an
answer or motion in response to the complaint, plaintiff may
amend his complaint once as a matter of right without seeking
the court's permission to file an amended complaint.
See Rule 15(a)(B), Fed.R.Civ.P. (permitting a party
to “amend its pleading once as a matter of course . . .
“if the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading
is required, [either] 21 days after service of a responsive
pleading or 21 days after service of a motion” to
dismiss, for more definite statement or to strike,
“whichever is earlier.”). Accordingly, the motion
to amend is granted. The Clerk shall docket the amended
complaint attached to the motion to amend.
Motion for Default [ECF No. 16]
plaintiff seeks to default the defendants for failure to
plead to the amended complaint. Because the amended complaint
has not been served on the defendants, they are not in
default for failure to plead. The motion for default is
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), the court must review prisoner
civil complaints against governmental actors and
“dismiss ... any portion of [a] complaint [that] is
frivolous, malicious, or 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.” Id. This requirement applies both
where the inmate has paid the filing fee and where he is
proceeding in forma pauperis. See Carr v.
Dvorin, 171 F.3d 115 (2d Cir. 1999) (per curiam).
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, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual
matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face. 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.” Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotation
marks and citations omitted). A complaint that includes only
“‘labels and conclusions, ' ‘a
formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of
action' or ‘naked assertion[s]' devoid of
‘further factual enhancement, '” does not
meet the facial plausibility standard. Id. (quoting
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 557
(2007)). Although courts have an obligation to interpret
“a pro se complaint liberally, ” the
complaint must still include sufficient factual allegations
to meet the standard of facial plausibility. See Harris
v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir. 2009) (citations
Legal Claims and Defendants
amended complaint is filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act
(“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq. and the
Rehabilitation Act (“RA”), 29 U.S.C. § 794.
The listed defendants are: Correctional Managed Health Care
(“CMHC”), University of Connecticut Health Center
(“UCONN”), the Department of Correction, Dr.
Shafer, Dr. David M., Dr. Monica Farinella, Dr. Ricardo Ruiz,
Dr. Carson Wright, Dr. Seramandis, Dr. Kathleen Maurer, Nurse
Barbara Savoie, Nurse Vicki Scruggs, Nurse Ellen Durko,
Health Services Administrator Brian Liebel, Nurse Tim
Bombard, Nurse Mary Ellen Castro, and Health Services
Administrator Rikel Lightner.
August 2009 at Corrigan Correctional Institution, the
plaintiff sustained an injury to his face while playing
basketball in the recreation yard. See Am. Compl.
¶ 17 & Exs. 1-8 at 2. X-ray scans taken of the
plaintiff's face revealed a fracture of his left superior
orbital rim and the left frontal sinus and several fracture
fragments pressing on his left superior rectus muscle.
See Id. ¶ 18 & Exs. 1-8 at 2.
officials transferred the plaintiff to UCONN for surgery.
See Id. ¶ 18 & Exs. 1-8 at 4. The plaintiff
underwent surgery on August 15, 2009. See Id. ¶
19 & Exs. 1-8 at 4, 9. On August 17, 2009, hospital
officials discharged the plaintiff to a Department of
Correction facility. See Id. ¶ 21 & Exs.
1-8 at 6.
one year after his surgery, the plaintiff began to experience
itching and burning sensations on his head, face, neck, ears
and chest. See Id. ¶ 22. The plaintiff sought
treatment from health care officials within the Department of
Correction for these painful symptoms. See Id.
March 2011, prison officials transferred the plaintiff to
Cheshire Correctional Institution (“Cheshire”).
See Id. ¶ 24. At Cheshire, Dr. Ruiz was the
plaintiff's treating physician. See id. He ...