United States District Court, D. Connecticut
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §
Jeffrey Alker Meyer, United States District Judge.
Michael Davis is a prisoner in the custody of the Connecticut
Department of Correction. He has filed this lawsuit against
prison officials claiming that they were deliberately
indifferent to his serious medical needs in violation of the
Eighth Amendment. After an initial review, the Court
concludes that the complaint should be served only on
defendants Furey and Breton but dismissed as to all other
complaint names five defendants: Warden Edward Maldonado,
Warden Kimberly Weir, Warden William Faneuff, Health Services
Administrator Richard Furey, and Dr. Breton.The following
factual allegations are accepted as true solely for purposes
of this initial review order and without prejudice to the
rights of any defendant to challenge the adequacy of the
pleadings or otherwise to seek dismissal once served.
28, 2016, plaintiff submitted a medical request for treatment
of “a painful and blistering rash on the upper half of
[his] body.” Doc. #1 at 5 (¶ 1). An unnamed
medical staff member called plaintiff to the medical unit,
did not provide any treatment, and referred plaintiff to Dr.
Breton. Id. Plaintiff was not called to see the
time, he submitted another medical request and a grievance,
but received no response. Furey told plaintiff that he had
thrown out the documents. Id. (¶ 2). At some
time during the past eighteen months, plaintiff wrote to the
three wardens seeking medical treatment from Dr. Breton, but
nothing was done. Id. (¶ 3).
has experienced constant pain for months. The pain has
limited his physical activities and prevented sleep. The
affected areas include plaintiff's eyes, neck, underarms,
inner arms, and inner thighs. Id. (¶ 4).
Breton saw plaintiff on December 6, 2017, to provide
temporary relief. Dr. Breton told plaintiff that, due to
budget cuts, there were not enough doctors to treat all
inmates and he would not see plaintiff again. Id. at
6 (¶ 8).
plaintiff alleges that he was provided no treatment from July
2016 until December 2017, the documents he attaches to the
complaint show that in November and December 2016, and again
in May 2017, he was provided hydrocortisone cream by an
unnamed APRN which relieved the rash. Id. at 44, 42,
40. When he stopped using the cream, however, the rash
returned. Id. at 28, 30 (November 2017); 32, 34
(August 2017). In addition, a September 2016 grievance was
returned without disposition with a notation that he had been
seen multiple times by the doctor and admitted to the
hospital unit for his complaints. Id. at 25-26
also attached inmate requests addressed generally to
Warden/Unit Administrator dated December 1, 2017, November 7,
2017, and October 17, 2017. Faneuff responded to each
request, stating each time that plaintiff had been scheduled
to see Dr. Breton soon. Id. at 11-13. He also
informed plaintiff that his inquiries should be directed to
Furey. Id. at 13. A request form submitted to Furey
on October 17, 2017, also resulted in a statement that
plaintiff would be seen by Dr. Breton within a few days, but
it does not appear that plaintiff was seen until December 6
or 8, 2017. Id. at 9, 10, 15.
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court must review a
prisoner's civil complaint against a governmental entity
or governmental actors and “identify cognizable claims
or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if
the complaint-(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state
a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks
monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such
relief.” If the prisoner is proceeding pro se,
the allegations of the complaint must be read liberally to
raise the strongest arguments that they suggest. See
Tracy v. Freshwater, 623 F.3d 90, 101-02 (2d Cir. 2010).
recent years, the Supreme Court has set forth a threshold
“plausibility” pleading standard for courts to
evaluate the adequacy of allegations in federal court
complaints. A complaint must allege enough facts-as distinct
from legal conclusions-that give rise to plausible grounds
for relief. See, e.g., Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). Notwithstanding the
rule of liberal interpretation of a pro se
complaint, a pro se complaint may not survive
dismissal if its factual allegations do not meet the basic
plausibility standard. See, e.g., Fowlkes v.
Ironworkers Local 40, 790 F.3d 378, 387 (2d Cir. 2015).
has brought his claims against each of the five defendants in
both their personal and official capacities. Because each of
the defendants is an employee of the State of Connecticut,
plaintiff's official-capacity claims against them for
money damages are plainly barred by the Eleventh Amendment.
See, e.g., Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S.
159, 169 (1985). In addition, because it appears from
plaintiff's complaint and the attached medical records
that he did receive treatment on December 6 or 8, 2017, and
because plaintiff does not allege that this treatment was
deficient or that his rash continues to plague ...