United States District Court, D. Connecticut
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER
C. Hall, United States District Judge
plaintiff, Janice Troisi (“Troisi”), formerly
incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution in
Danbury (“FCI Danbury”), Connecticut,
filed a Complaint pro se under Bivens v. Six
Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403
U.S. 388 (1971). See generally Complaint
(“Compl.”) (Doc. No. 1). Troisi sought leave to
proceed in forma pauperis. Motions for Leave to
Proceed in Forma Pauperis (Doc. Nos. 2, 7, 11). On September
12, 2018, the court granted Troisi's application. Order
(Doc. No. 12).
Complaint names two defendants: Warden D.K. Williams and
Health Care Services. Troisi contends that the defendants
violated her Eighth Amendment rights and committed medical
malpractice through deliberate indifferent to her serious
medical needs. Compl. at ¶ 1. She also includes
references to the Americans with Disabilities Act and denial
of telephone calls. See id. at ¶¶ 1(c),
section 1915A of title 28 of the United States Code, the
court must review prisoner civil complaints and dismiss any
portion of a 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. In reviewing a
pro se complaint, the court must assume the truth of
the allegations, and interpret them liberally to “raise
the strongest arguments [they] suggest[ ].” Abbas
v. Dixon, 480 F.3d 636, 639 (2d Cir. 2007). Although
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 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
570. Nevertheless, it is well-established that
“[p]ro se complaints ‘must be construed
liberally and interpreted to raise the strongest arguments
that they suggest.'” Sykes v. Bank of Am.,
723 F.3d 399, 403 (2d Cir. 2013) (quoting Triestman v.
Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474 (2d Cir.
2006)); see also Tracy v. Freshwater, 623 F.3d 90,
101-02 (2d Cir. 2010) (discussing special rules of solicitude
for pro se litigants). However, notwithstanding this
liberal interpretation, a pro se complaint will not
survive dismissal unless the factual allegations meet the
plausibility standard. See, e.g.,
Fowlkes v. Ironworkers Local 40, 790 F.3d 378, 387
(2d Cir. 2015).
suffers from spinal stenosis, depression, anxiety, insomnia,
hypertension, bursitis, and hypercholesterolemia. Compl. at
¶1. She experiences pain. Id. On April 6, 2016,
she entered the Prison Camp at FCI Danbury. Id.
Troisi provided Danbury Medical Services copies of her
medical records. Id. at ¶1(a). She was not
offered any pain medication. Id. Troisi's
complaints of pain were ignored by Danbury Medical Services,
and she was advised to purchase pain medication from the
commissary. Id. At some point, Troisi was given
Meloxicam, a mild pain medication. Id.
complaints about the ineffectiveness of her medication were
ignored. Id. She was told that pain was part of her
condition and told that she could be sent to the medical
facility in Texas. Id. In response to frequent
requests for examination by an orthopedist, Troisi was told
she had to wait her turn. Id. However, inmates
admitted after Troisi were seen before her. Id.
was seen by an orthopedist in July 2016. Id. He
administered a cortisone injection to her left hip and knee
and ordered a neurological consult for spinal stenosis.
Id. Troisi saw a neurologist in October 2016, at
which time he ordered a surgical consult. Id. On
January 13, 2017, the orthopedic surgeon's
physician's assistant ordered an MRI. Id. The
test was not performed until October 2017. Id.
March 2017, Troisi's roommate told her that she could
obtain prescription strength Ibuprofen through the
“pain registry.” Id. After consulting
Health Care Services, Troisi was registered and began
receiving the medication. Id. Another inmate told
Troisi that she could receive injections similar to those she
had received before she was incarcerated. Id. When
she requested the injections, Troisi was told to wait for the
MRI results. Id.
February 22, 2017, Troisi awoke with red, swollen, and watery
eyes. Id. at ¶1(b). A Physician's Assistant
(“PA”) diagnosed her with blepharitis and,
ignoring her request for Prednisone eye drops, prescribed
oral Prednisone and instructed Troisi to follow-up with the
Nurse Practitioner (“NP”) in a few days.
Id. The NP refused a request for eye drops and
continued the Prednisone for five additional days.
Id. On March 8, 2017, the Prednisone was
discontinued. Id. The condition appeared to have
days later, the condition returned. Id. Troisi's
left eye was completely swollen shut and her right eye was
partially swollen shut. Id. Her face was red, rashy,
and puffy. Id. The NP prescribed Triacinolone cream
for Troisi's face and ordered an increased dose of
Prednisone. Id. Two days later, Troisi's face
appeared burned, and the rash had spread to her hands.
Id. Troisi saw the NP and requested lab work and
dermatology, allergy, and immunology consults. The requests
were refused. Id.
March 16, 2017, the NP dismissed the burns on Troisi's
face. Id. She prescribed eye drops as well as Zantac
and Doxepin, an antidepressant. Id. The NP told
Troisi that the medications were prescribed for their
“antihistaminic side effects.” Troisi disagreed
but her concerns were dismissed. Id.
March 20, 2017, Nurse McGregor noticed the rash while
dispensing medication and asked Dr. Tindal, the medical
director, to see Troisi. Id. Dr. Tindal diagnosed
severe first degree burns, ordered lab tests, consults, and
an antihistamine. Id. He discontinued Triacinolone