United States District Court, D. Connecticut
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER
Michael P. Shea United States District Judge.
plaintiff, Curtis Johnell Vines, is currently confined at
Cheshire Correctional Institution. He initiated this action
by filing a complaint against Physician Assistant
(“PA”) Kevin McCrystal, Correctional Officer
Olivio, and Correctional Officer Barrows. For the reasons set
forth below, the complaint will be dismissed in part.
Standard of Review
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), the court must review prisoner
civil complaints against governmental actors and
“dismiss ... any portion of [a] complaint [that] is
frivolous, malicious, or 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.” Id. Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure requires that a complaint contain “a
short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2).
detailed allegations are not required, “a complaint
must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to
state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. A
claim has facial plausibility when a plaintiff pleads factual
content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). A
complaint that includes only “‘labels and
conclusions,' ‘a formulaic recitation of the
elements of a cause of action' or ‘naked
assertion[s]' devoid of ‘further factual
enhancement, '” does not meet the facial
plausibility standard. Id. (quoting Bell Atl.
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 557 (2007)).
Although courts still have an obligation to interpret
“a pro se complaint liberally, ” the
complaint must include sufficient factual allegations to meet
the standard of facial plausibility. See Harris v.
Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir. 2009) (citations
April 4, 2017, at MacDougall-Walker Correctional Institution
(“MacDougall-Walker”), the plaintiff injured his
knee playing basketball. See Compl. at 6 ¶ 1
& at 7 ¶ 6. The plaintiff could not move his leg or
foot or “stand without falling down.” See
Id. at 6 ¶ 1. An officer called a “medical
code” and medical staff members transferred the
plaintiff to the medical unit. See Id. PA McCrystal
examined the plaintiff's knee, prescribed ibuprofen for
the pain, and directed a nurse to wrap the plaintiff's
knee and provide him with crutches. See Id. ¶
2. The plaintiff informed PA McCrystal and the nurse that he
believed that the injury to his knee could not be
“fix[ed]” with ibuprofen, but they would not
listen to his opinion. See id.
evening, at the dinner meal, the plaintiff asked Correctional
Officers Olivio and Barrows to contact the medical department
because the pain in his injured knee was severe. See
Id. ¶¶ 3-4. In response to the plaintiff's
request, Officer Olivio “made a very smart remark about
pain and not being able to talk” and Officer Barrows
stated that she did not “want nothing to do with
it.” See Id. ¶¶ 3-4. The plaintiff
was unable to sleep during the night of April 4, 2017, and
early morning hours of April 5, 2017, because his knee was so
painful. See Id. ¶ 3.
the morning of April 5, 2017, after convincing correctional
staff that he was experiencing the worst pain that he had
ever experienced in his life, a lieutenant arranged for him
to undergo an x-ray. See Id. at 7 ¶ 5. During a
visit to the medical unit after the x-ray, a nurse explained
to the plaintiff that he had “broke[n]” his knee
“in half.” See Id. Medical officials at
Cheshire transferred the plaintiff to the University of
Connecticut Medical Center (“UCONN”) for surgery.
See Id. ¶ 6. A surgeon “put two screws in
[the plaintiff's] left knee.” See Id.
Three days after the procedure, hospital officials
transferred the plaintiff back to MacDougall-Walker. See
the next three weeks, medical staff members neglected to
clean the incisions from the surgical procedure. See
Id. ¶ 7. As a result, pus began to ooze from the
incisions and the plaintiff experienced throbbing and burning
sensations in his left knee. See Id. A nurse
examined the plaintiff's knee and indicated “that
is going to happen.” See Id. During the
three-week period following his knee surgery, the plaintiff
saw Dr. Pillai and PA McCrystal. See Id. ¶ 8.
5, 2017, Dr. Syed Naqvi examined the plaintiff's knee and
concluded that the incisions had become infected. See
Id. Dr. Naqvi prescribed a 7-day course of antibiotics
to treat the infection. See id.
16, 2017, the plaintiff filed a “medical
grievance” regarding PA McCrystal's treatment of
his knee injury. See Id. ¶ 9. PA McCrystal
denied the grievance. See id.
plaintiff contends that the defendants violated the Eighth
Amendment, failed to comply with the procedures set forth in
State of Connecticut Department of Correction Administrative
Directive 9.6, and engaged in negligent conduct. For relief,
the plaintiff seeks punitive ...