United States District Court, D. Connecticut
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER
CHARLES S. HAIGHT, JR. SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff, Jeremias Serrano, is currently incarcerated at
Willard-Cybulski Correctional Institution. He has filed a
pro se Complaint [Doc. 1-1], under 42 U.S.C. §
1983, against Correctional Officer John Doe, Correctional
Officer Gilliard, Dr. Johnny C. Wright, Dr. Linda Oesar, and
Nurse N. Conyers. For the reasons set forth below, the
Complaint will be dismissed, with leave to file an amended
Standard of Review
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), the court must review prisoner
civil complaints against government 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." 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, 116 (2d Cir. 1999)
8(a)(2) 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."
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
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). (quoting
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 557
(2007)). A complaint that includes only "labels and
conclusions . . . a formulaic recitation of the elements of a
cause of action," or "naked assertions devoid of
further factual enhancement," does not meet the facial
plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678
(internal quotation marks and alteration omitted).
are "obligated to construe a pro se complaint
liberally," but 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).
factual allegations, accepted as true only for the purposes
of this Order, are taken from the numbered paragraphs at
pages 5-7 of the Complaint [Doc. 1-1],  as well as the
Exhibits to that filing.
September 22, 2015 Plaintiff and a number of other inmates
were to be transferred from Bridgeport Correctional Center
("Bridgeport") to Walker Correctional Institution
("Walker"). Early that morning, at 3:30 a.m.,
Corrections officers brought Plaintiff and other inmates to
be escorted, with their property bags, to the Admitting and
Processing area. Compl. ¶ 1; Exs. to Compl. at 1. Prior
to escorting the Plaintiff and the other inmates, prison
officials handcuffed each inmate to a chain. Id. The
inmates were expected to carry their bag of belongings in the
hand that was not handcuffed to the chain. Id.
informed Correctional Officer Santiago (not named as a
defendant to this action) that, because of bullets lodged in
Plaintiff's left arm, he was unable to lift the property
bag containing his personal belongings while shackled to the
chain. Id. ¶ 1. Plaintiff asked Officer
Santiago for permission to use the push cart to transport his
personal belongings. Id. ¶ 2. Officer Santiago
informed Plaintiff that he must ask Defendant Doe, the
transporting officer, for permission to use the push cart.
Id. Defendant Doe denied Plaintiff's request to
use the push cart. Id. ¶ 3. Defendant Doe then
unhooked Plaintiff from the chain, and cuffed Plaintiff's
two hands together. Id. Plaintiff told Defendant Doe
that he could not lift his belongings with two cuffed hands.
Id. Defendant Doe told Plaintiff that he must carry
his own belongings. Id.
picked up his bag and held it in front of his face.
Id. ¶ 4. Another inmate guided Plaintiff as he
walked towards the Admitting and Processing room.
Id. With the bag obscuring his vision, Plaintiff
could not see where he was going, and, at one point, his foot
got stuck in a gutter and his ankle "snapped."
Id. Plaintiff fell to the ground and screamed.
Id. Officer Doe asked Plaintiff what had happened
and Plaintiff explained that he had hurt his ankle, he could
not stand up and needed a wheelchair. Id. Plaintiff
asked Officer Doe to call a "Code White," to get a
wheelchair. Id. Officer Doe refused to get a
wheelchair and ordered Plaintiff to hop, on one foot, to the
medical department. Id. Plaintiff hopped about half
a mile, up steps and through doors and metal detectors, to
get to the medical department. Id. ¶ 5.
explained to medical personnel what had happened to his ankle
and they provided him with ice, ibuprofen, and a wrap.
Id. ¶ 6. A lieutenant took photos of
Plaintiff's injury and made Plaintiff sign an incident
report. Id. See also "Medical Incident
Report," Exs. to Compl. at 13. Prison officials
transferred Plaintiff to Walker later that day. Compl. ¶
September 23, 2015, medical personnel at Walker gave
Plaintiff ice, ibuprofen and a cane. Id. ¶ 7.
From that point until December 2015, the only care Plaintiff
received for his injury was ibuprofen. Id. ¶ 8.
In December 2015, Plaintiff was transferred to Enfield
Correctional Institution ("Enfield"). Id.
¶ 9. At Enfield, medical personnel took away
Plaintiff's cane, and provided him with ibuprofen and a
2016, prison officials sent Plaintiff to Osborn Correctional
Institution ("Osborn") for an X-ray. Id.
¶ 10. Prison officials at Osborn sent Plaintiff back to
Enfield six months later. Id. Plaintiff underwent
another X-ray. Id. Prison officials transferred
Plaintiff to the University of Connecticut Health Center
("UConn"). Id. Medical personnel at UConn
informed Plaintiff that he had broken fragments, ripped
tissue and fluid in his ankle. Id. These ongoing
conditions were the cause of the chronic swelling in
Plaintiff's ankle. Id. Physicians at UConn