Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Trowell v. RN Jamie

United States District Court, D. Connecticut

June 19, 2018

FREDDIE TROWELL, Jr., Plaintiff,
v.
RN JAMIE, Defendant.

          INITIAL REVIEW ORDER

          Michael P. Shea, United States District Judge.

         The 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.

         I. Legal Standard

         Pursuant 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) (per curiam).

         Rule 8 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) (citations omitted).

         II. Factual Allegations

         Jamie 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 Correctional Center).

         During 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 id.

         On an 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. See id.

         At some 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.

         The 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.

         The 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.

         III. Discussion

         The 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 ΒΆ 1. In his demand for relief, the plaintiff states that he seeks ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.