Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Troisi v. Williams

United States District Court, D. Connecticut

October 31, 2018

D.K. WILLIAMS, et al., Defendants.


          Janet C. Hall, United States District Judge


         The plaintiff, Janice Troisi (“Troisi”), formerly incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution in Danbury (“FCI Danbury”), Connecticut, [1] has 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).

         The 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), 1(e), .

         Under 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).


         Troisi 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.

         Troisi's 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.

         Troisi 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.

         In 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.

         On 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 resolved. Id.

         Two 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.

         On 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.

         On 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 ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.