United States District Court, D. Connecticut
RULING ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO AMEND (DOC. NO.
C. Hall United States District Judge
plaintiff, Eugene Lionel Walker (“Walker”),
currently incarcerated at Corrigan-Radgowski Correctional
Center in Uncasville, Connecticut, seeks leave to file a
Second Amended Complaint in response to the court's May
21, 2018 Order. For the reasons that follow, Walker's
Motion to Amend (Doc. No. 50) is denied.
named six defendants in his Amended Complaint, Dr. Carson
Wright and Nurses Barbara Savoie, Shannon Lawrence, Wanda
Verville, Darnella Burke and Debra Wilson. Walker asserted
federal claims for deliberate indifference to serious medical
needs and violation of his right to equal protection of the
law. See Amended Complaint (“Am.
Compl.”)(Doc. No. 29) at 10-12. He also re-asserted
state law claims for negligence and medical malpractice which
were dismissed in the Initial Review Order. See id.
at 11; Initial Review Order (Doc. No. 9) at 10-11.
defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss and/or Motion for
Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. No. 39) directed to the
deliberate indifference claims. The court granted that Motion
as to the claims against Nurses Savoie, Lawrence, Burke, and
Wilson and denied the motion as to the claims against Dr.
Wright and Nurse Verville. See Ruling (Doc. No. 46)
at 21. On May 21, 2018, the court issued an Order directing
Walker to file an amended complaint if he intended to pursue
his equal protection claim. Walker was directed to identify
the defendants involved in the claim and to allege facts
satisfying the pleading requirements for an equal protection
claim. See Order (Doc. No. 47).
Proposed Second Amended Complaint is a copy of the Amended
Complaint with three changes. First, Walker has revised the
paragraph relating to his equal protection claim. Second,
Walker states that he is suing all defendants in their
official capacities as well as their individual capacities
and that the omission of official capacity from the Complaint
and Amended Complaint was inadvertent. Third, Walker has
appended the results of a 2014 CT scan to address the
deficiency identified in the Initial Review Order regarding
his state law malpractice claim. The defendants object to the
re-assertion of previously dismissed claims.
Equal Protection Claim
includes the following paragraph to clarify his equal
Plaintiff's equal protection rights were violated by
doctor Carson Wright and Nurse Verville. Due to the fact that
all sentenced inmates are housed at facilities that as per
state statute C.G.S. 18 have a doctor working every business
day. Dr. Carson Wright was notified about plaintiff's
deteriorating condition on four separate occasions and still
did not examine plaintiff to identify the problem despite the
fact that, the severe symptoms were clearly presenting
themselves. Additionally, Nurse Verville acted outside of her
authority [and] provence by interjecting her own personal
assessment of plaintiff's condition, assuming it was just
the eye, and only prescribed putting warm water and soap on
it. Under similar situated circumstances a doctor would have
taken the information he or she received and do a proper
examination to identify the root problem. Furthermore, a
nurse under similar situated circumstances would have called
a doctor or immediately put plaintiff on the emergency call
list. Plaintiff being a pretrial detainee at the time was
only being held because plaintiff could not make bond was [ ]
entitled to equal protection of the law guaranteed by the
Second Amended Complaint (“Proposed Second Am.
Compl.”)(Doc. No. 50-1) at 15.
has complied with part of the court's Order by stating
that his equal protection claim is asserted against Dr.
Wright and Nurse Verville, the only remaining defendants.
However, he fails to allege facts to state a plausible equal
Equal Protection Clause protects prisoners from invidious
discrimination. This provision does not mandate identical
treatment for each individual; rather it requires that
similarly situated persons be treated the same. City of
Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432, 439-40
(1985). To state an equal protection claim, Walker must
allege facts showing that he was “treated differently
than others similarly situated as a result of intentional or
purposeful discrimination.” Phillips v.
Girdich, 408 F.3d 124, 129 (2d Cir. 2005). Walker can
demonstrate an equal protection violation by
“point[ing] to a law or policy that expressly
classifies persons on the basis of race, ”
“identify[ing] a facially neutral law or policy that
has been applied in an intentionally discriminatory manner,
” or “alleg[ing] that a facially neutral statute
or policy has an adverse effect and it was motivated by
discriminatory animus.” Anderson v. Waterbury
Police Dep't, 2017 WL 1157843, at *9 (D. Conn.
Mar. 28, 2017) (quoting Brown v. City of Oneonta,
N.Y., 221 F.3d 329, 337 (2d Cir. 2000)) (internal
quotation marks omitted).
alleges that sentenced inmates, unlike pretrial detainees,
are held in correctional facilities with a full-time doctor.
Although he argues that this arrangement is pursuant to state
statute, he has provided an incomplete citation. The court
has searched the Connecticut General Statutes and not found
any statute referring to the allocation of doctors to
correctional facilities. Walker has identified no law or
policy that was applied to him in a discriminatory manner.
Nor does he allege that he is a member of a protected class
or that he was treated differently because of a suspect
classification. See Robles v. Dennison, 745
F.Supp.2d 244, 301 n.18 (W.D.N.Y. 2010) (merely being a
prisoner is insufficient to put plaintiff in a suspect
class), aff'd, 449 Fed.Appx. 51 (2d Cir. 2011);
Lehal v. United States, No. 13CV3923 (DF), 2015 WL