United States District Court, D. Connecticut
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER
Michael P. Shea, United States District Judge.
plaintiff, Freddie Trowell, Jr., was incarcerated at the
MacDougall-Walker Correctional Institution when he initiated
this action, but now resides in Bridgeport, Connecticut.
resides in Bridgeport, Connecticut. He has filed a civil
rights complaint against Nurse Jamie.
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 standard of review is
applicable when an inmate is proceeding in forma
pauperis as well as when an inmate has paid the filing
fee. See Carr v. Dvorin, 171 F.3d 115 (2d Cir. 1999)
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 a plaintiff need not include
detailed allegations, “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 still 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)
is described as a registered nurse who works at 1106 North
Avenue in Bridgeport, Connecticut. See Compl., ECF
No. 1 at 3. The court takes judicial notice of the fact that
Bridgeport Correctional Center (“Bridgeport
Correctional”) is located at 1106 North Avenue in
Bridgeport, Connecticut. See Connecticut State
Department of Correction website available at
http://portal.ct.gov/DOC (Facilities - Bridgeport
the year preceding the filing of this action, the plaintiff
suffered from a rash all over his body. See Compl.
at 5 ¶ 1. The rash has left scars and bumps on the
plaintiff's body and has caused his skin to be dry.
See Id. The plaintiff claims that at least fifteen
other inmates have suffered from a similar rash. See
unidentified date, the plaintiff “was seen” at
Bridgeport Correctional because of his rash. See Id.
The plaintiff believes that his rash was caused by the
Department of Correction's “water system.”
See Id. The plaintiff states that the water at
Bridgeport Correctional smelled like it came from the sewer.
later point, prison officials at Bridgeport Correctional
transferred the plaintiff to another prison facility within
Connecticut. See Id. At the new facility, the water
smelled like it had come from the sewer. See Id.
After showering at the new facility, the plaintiff feels
unclean and his skin feels dry. See id.
plaintiff has informed the medical department about the
foul-smelling water at the facilities in which he has been
confined. Medical staff members do not believe that the
condition of the water at the various facilities was the
cause of the plaintiff's rash. See id.
plaintiff cannot afford lotion from the commissary to
alleviate the symptoms of his skin condition. See
Id. In response to the plaintiff's request for
lotion to alleviate his itchy skin, a medical staff member
provided him with a small tube of cream. See Id. The
cream did not alleviate his symptoms. See Id. The
plaintiff argued with the medical department in order to
receive a lotion for his skin rash. See Id. Eight to
nine months after the rash became apparent, the plaintiff
received lotion from the medical department. See Id.
The rash is still itchy and it hurts. See Id. at
5-6. The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages. See
Id. at 6.
plaintiff does not allege that the defendant violated any
federal law or constitutional provision. He also does not
specifically allege any actions by Nurse Jamie. Construed
liberally, he suggests that the Department of Corrections
neglected or failed to care about his wellbeing or health.
Specifically, in the first paragraph on page six of the
complaint, the plaintiff states that he is seeking justice in
response to the lack of care by the Department of Correction
for his health and wellbeing and the lack of care by the
Department of Correction for the wellbeing of other inmates.
See Compl., ECF No. 1 at 6 ¶ 1. In his demand
for relief, the plaintiff states that he seeks ...