United States District Court, D. Connecticut
RULING ON MOTION TO DISMISS
ALVIN W. THOMPSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
plaintiff, Randal Licari, is incarcerated at the
Willard-Cybulski Correctional Institution in Enfield,
Connecticut. He initiated this action by filing a civil
rights complaint asserting claims of deliberate indifference
to medical needs against Commissioner Scott Semple; Drs.
Giles, Naqvi, Wu and Coleman; Physician Assistant Kevin
Crystal; and Nurses Dionne, Shannon, Heidi Green, Barbara
LaFrance and Rikil Lightner.
9, 2017, the court dismissed all retaliation claims and all
other claims against defendants Semple, Giles and Coleman
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). The court concluded
that the plaintiff had stated plausible claims that Dr.
Naqvi, Physician Assistant Crystal, and Nurses Green,
LaFrance, Dionne, Shannon and Lightner were deliberately
indifferent to his complaints of pain in his groin area after
undergoing hernia surgery in April 2015 and that Dr. Wu was
deliberately indifferent to his painful groin condition by
failing to provide any treatment for his complaints of pain
after concluding that he did not suffer from ilioinguinal
nerveentrapment or a “nerve block.”
The case proceeds against defendants Naqvi, Crystal, Green,
LaFrance, Dionne, Shannon, Lightner and Wu in their
individual and official capacities.
defendants have moved to dismiss the complaint. For the
reasons set forth below, the motion to dismiss is being
denied in part and granted in part.
the defendants purport to have filed their motion to dismiss
pursuant to both Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), Fed. R. Civ.
P., they offer no argument in support of dismissal due to a
lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Thus, the court
considers the motion only under Rule 12(b)(6), Fed. R. Civ.
considering a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), Fed. R.
Civ. P., the court “accepts as true all of the factual
allegations set out in [the] complaint, draw[s] inferences
from those allegations in the light most favorable to the
plaintiff, and construes the complaint liberally.”
Roth v. Jennings, 489 F.3d 499, 510 (2d Cir. 2007)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In addition
to the facts set forth in the complaint, the court may also
consider documents either attached to the complaint or
incorporated into it by reference, “and matters subject
to judicial notice.” New York Pet Welfare
Ass'n, Inc. v. City of New York, 850 F.3d 79, 86 (2d
Cir. 2017) (citation omitted).
withstand a motion to dismiss, “a complaint must
contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to
‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.'” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “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.”
Id. “The plausibility standard is not akin to
a ‘probability requirement,' but it asks for more
than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted
unlawfully.” Id. Legal conclusions and
“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of
action, supported by mere conclusory statements, ” are
not entitled to a presumption of truth. Id.
June 27, 2014, the plaintiff was experiencing chronic pain in
his testicular/groin area that interfered with his ability to
walk, sleep and exercise. See Compl. at 3 ¶ 7.
On April 15, 2015, the plaintiff underwent double hernia
surgery at the University of Connecticut Health Center
(“UCONN”). See Id. ¶¶
5, 2015, the plaintiff complained to the surgeon who had
performed his hernia surgery that he was still experiencing
pain in his groin. See Id. ¶ 10. The surgeon
opined that the degree of pain that the plaintiff claimed to
still be experiencing was excessive given the uncomplicated
nature of the procedure. See Id. The surgeon
recommended that a follow-up appointment be scheduled by the
treating physician at the plaintiff's place of
confinement if the pain did not subside within two weeks.
his hernia surgery, the plaintiff worked as a janitor seven
days a week. See Id. ¶ 12. During this time, he
was in contact with and complained to Dr. Naqvi, Physician
Assistant Crystal, and Nurses Green, LaFrance, Dionne,
Shannon and Lightner about the pain he continued to
experience in his groin area. See Id. ¶ 11. On
September 10, 2015, he filed a grievance claiming that he was
still experiencing groin pain, but no one responded to the
grievance. See Id. ¶ 13.
point, the plaintiff filed a habeas petition in state court
seeking medical treatment for his groin pain. See
Id. ¶ 14. He also sought mental health treatment
for anxiety caused by the pain in his groin area. See
Id. at 4 ¶ 16. At some later point, prison
officials transferred the plaintiff to Osborn Correctional
Institution. See Id. ¶ 15.
April 3, 2016, the plaintiff met with Dr. Naqvi who informed
him that Dr. Giles had diagnosed him as suffering from
ilioinguinal nerve entrapment and had recommended that he
receive injections into his upper thighs. See Id.
¶ 18. This treatment did not relieve the plaintiff's
pain. See Id. Dr. Naqvi did not submit a request
that the plaintiff undergo surgery to correct the condition