United States District Court, D. Connecticut
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER
MICHAEL P. SHEA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Lester Jordan, currently incarcerated at the
MacDougall-Walker Correctional Institution in Suffield,
Connecticut, filed this case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He
contends that the defendant, Nurse Barbara LaFrance, is
deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs.
Although the plaintiff names the defendant in both individual
and official capacities, he seeks only damages and references
only individual capacity in the prayer for relief.
Court must review prisoner civil complaints and dismiss any
portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, that
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. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. This requirement
applies to all prisoner filings regardless whether the
prisoner pays the filing fee. Nicholson v.
Lenczewski, 356 F.Supp.2d 157, 159 (D. Conn. 2005)
(citing Carr v. Dvorin, 171 F.3d 115 (2d Cir. 1999)
(per curiam)). Here, the plaintiff is proceeding in forma
detailed allegations are not required, the complaint must
include sufficient facts to afford the defendants fair notice
of the claims and the grounds upon which they are based and
to demonstrate a plausible right to relief. Bell Atlantic
v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-56 (2007). Conclusory
allegations are not sufficient. Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). The plaintiff must plead
“enough facts to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at
plaintiff was transferred to the Walker Reception Special
Management Unit (“Walker”) at MacDougall-Walker
Correctional Institution in April 2018. ECF No. 1, ¶ 10.
The plaintiff has juvenile diabetes and is insulin-dependent.
Id., ¶ 11. His blood sugar level should be
between 80 and 130. Id., ¶ 12. Since he was
transferred to Walker, however, the plaintiff's blood
sugar level has been well over 200, often ranging between 300
and 400. Id., ¶ 13. The high levels have caused
him to experience loss of appetite, loss of sleep, excessive
thirst, constant urination, stomach and bladder aches,
headaches, fatigue, blurred vision, and increased neuropathic
foot damage. Id.
plaintiff requested, but was denied a diabetic diet.
Id., ¶ 15. Prior to his incarceration, the
plaintiff took insulin twice a day. Id., ¶ 17.
At Walker, he has been given insulin three times per day to
address the high blood sugar levels, but his blood sugar
levels remain uncontrolled. Id., ¶ 18.
plaintiff is scheduled to receive insulin within thirty
minutes of 6:00 a.m., 10:00 a.m., and 4:00 p.m. His meals are
served at 7:00 a.m., 10:00 a.m., and 4:00 p.m. Id.,
¶ 19. The amount of each insulin dose varies depending
on his blood sugar level. Id., ¶ 20. The 4:00
p.m. insulin dose often is administered between 4:30 p.m. and
5:00 p.m. Id., ¶ 21. The plaintiff cannot eat
his meals until after he receives his insulin and his blood
sugar level has lowered. Id., ¶ 24. Thus, he
often must wait an hour before eating a meal which has grown
cold. Id., ¶ 23.
plaintiff is confined to a small cell 23 hours per day. The
cell lacks sufficient space for him to properly exercise.
Id., ¶ 25.
blood sugar levels in diabetics can cause glaucoma,
blindness, dermatitis, gangrene resulting in amputations,
urinary tract infections, bladder damage, and the danger of
pancreas shutdown. Id., ¶ 26.
plaintiff has spoken and corresponded with the defendant
about stabilizing his glucose levels. Id., ¶
30. She believes that all diabetics should be treated the
same. Id., ¶ 31.
plaintiff contends that the defendant is deliberately
indifferent to his serious medical need. The Department of
Correction website indicates that the plaintiff was sentenced
on July 18, 2018. See
(last visited Sept. 17, 2018). Thus, for some of the time at
issue in this action, the plaintiff was a pretrial detainee.
pretrial detainee's rights under the Fourteenth Amendment
are “at least as great as the Eighth Amendment
protections available to a convicted prisoner.”
City of Revere v. Massachusetts Gen. Hosp., 463 U.S.
239, 244 (1983). Previously, the analysis of the two prongs
of the deliberate indifference standard were the same,
irrespective of whether the claim was brought under the
Eighth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment. See Caiozzo
v. Koreman, 581 F.3d 63, 72 (2d Cir. 2009),
overruled by Darnell v. Pineiro, 849 F.3d 17, 35 (2d
Cir. 2017). However, in Darnell, the Second Circuit,