Tatem v. Perelmuter

          INITIAL REVIEW ORDER

          Victor A. Bolden United States District Judge.

         On 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.^[1] See Motion to Appoint Counsel, dated Mar. 6, 2018 (“Mot.”), ECF No. 6.

         For the 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 moot.

         I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

         A. Factual Allegations

         Mr. 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.”^[2] Id. ¶ 9.

         On July 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.

         Mr. 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.

         Mr. 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.

         B. Procedural History

         On 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.^[3] 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.

         On 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.

         On 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.

         II. ...