United States District Court, D. Connecticut
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER
A. Bolden United States District Judge.
March 5, 2018, Darnell Tatem (“Plaintiff”) sued
Dr. Brian Perelmuter (“Defendant”), alleging
deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs and
violations of his civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
See Complaint, filed Mar. 5, 2018
(“Compl.”), ECF No. 1. Mr. Tatem has also moved
for appointment of counsel. See Motion to Appoint
Counsel, dated Mar. 6, 2018 (“Mot.”), ECF No. 6.
reasons explained below, the Complaint must be
DISMISSED under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)
for lack of standing and failure to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted. Accordingly, Mr. Tatem's motion
for appointment of counsel is DENIED as
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Tatem alleges that, on or around July 2, 2015, he sought
medical treatment for “a large mass that had grown
within and around his left jaw bone, ” and was taken to
the University of Connecticut Health Center for an
“Imaging Test/ CT Scan.” Compl. ¶ 8.
According to Mr. Tatem, that scan was diagnosed as
“[i]ncreased sclerosis, subtle widening and multiple
medullary lucencies [sic] develpoment [sic] in the body of
the left mandible with a sinus tract. Findings are most
suggestive of chronic osteomyelitis but considering
plaintiffs [sic] history, osteoradionecrosis could not be
excluded.” Id. ¶ 9.
15, 2015, Mr. Tatem alleges that “the above diagnosis
was forwarded to MD. Perelmuter . . . from the University of
Connecticut Health Center.” Id. ¶ 10. Mr.
Tatem claims that Dr. Perelmuter “never followed
up” with him and that his jaw “subsequently
developed into an infection resulting in the plaintiff
requiring a four week around the clock IV-treatment to clear
the infection.” Id. ¶ 11. Mr. Tatem
claims he did not learn about “the July 2015
diagnosis” until “over a year later.”
Id. ¶ 12.
Tatem claims that Dr. Perelmuter's failure to follow up
“resulted not just in an infection, but months of not
being able to eat food or chew without pain” and severe
discomfort. Id. ¶ 13. According to Mr. Tatem,
Dr. Perelmuter was at all times relevant to the Complaint
“a dentist employed through the University of
Connecticut Health Center/Correctional Managed Health Care
and assigned to Dental Services” at the Cheshire
Correctional Institution. Id. ¶ 7. “As a
dentist, the defendant was responsible for overseeing and
administrating medical care to inmates in accordance with
acceptable standards of practice governing the
profession.” Id. Mr. Tatem does not, however,
allege facts suggesting that Dr. Perelmuter was responsible
for Mr. Tatem's treatment on or around July 2, 2015-or at
any point thereafter.
Tatem attached a one-page record to the Complaint, entitled
“University of Connecticut Health Center - Correctional
Managed Health Care - UR Request Response.”
See id. at 7. The significance of this
record is unclear on its face, but it appears to have been
generated on May 27, 2016. Id.
March 5, 2018, Mr. Tatem filed the Complaint, alleging Dr.
Perelmuter was deliberately indifferent to his serious
medical needs and violated his civil rights under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. See Compl. In his Complaint, Mr.
Tatem seeks compensatory damages “in an amount this
Court shall consider to be just and fair, ” punitive
damages of $5, 000, 000, and “such other relief as this
Court shall consider to be fair and equitable.”
Id. at 3. Mr. Tatem states that he is suing Dr.
Perelmuter in his individual capacity. Id. ¶ 7.
March 5, 2018, Mr. Tatem also moved for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis. See Motion for Leave to
Proceed in forma pauperis, dated Mar. 5, 2018, ECF
No. 2. On March 7, 2018, the Court referred this motion to
Magistrate Judge William I. Garfinkel. Order Referring Case,
dated Mar. 7, 2018, ECF No. 7. On March 14, 2018, Magistrate
Judge Garfinkel granted Mr. Tatem's motion. Order
Granting Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma
pauperis, dated Mar. 14, 2018, ECF No. 8.
March 6, 2018, Mr. Tatem moved for appointment of counsel,
arguing that the Inmates' Legal Aid Program (ILAP) was
unable to provide him with adequate legal assistance, and
that he has “significant neurological issues that
prevent him from understanding proper processes for filing
his lawsuit.” See Mot. ¶¶ 14-15.