United States District Court, D. Connecticut
ANDRES Y. ACEVEDO, Plaintiff,
RICARDO RUIZ, et al., Defendants.
Vanessa L. Bryant, United States District Judge.
Andres Y. Acevedo, currently confined at Corrigan-Radgowski
Correctional Center in Uncasville, Connecticut, filed this
complaint pro se under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
alleging that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to
his medical needs. The named defendants are Dr. Ricardo Ruiz
and RN Jane Ventrella. The defendants are named in individual
and official capacities.
28 U.S.C. § 1915A (2000), the court must review prisoner
civil complaints and dismiss any portion of the 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.
Id. 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 “pro 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).
events underlying this action occurred while plaintiff was
confined at Cheshire Correctional Institution. In May 2016,
plaintiff discovered a lump on his testicle and began
experiencing testicular pain. On August 30, 2016, he
submitted an inmate request asking to have a doctor examine
the lump. RN Ventrella saw plaintiff the following day and
placed him on the list to see the doctor.
November 3, 2016, after waiting 65 days to see the doctor,
plaintiff submitted a second inmate request stating that he
had not yet been seen by the doctor and was still
experiencing pain. He requested a medical visit and
confirmation that he was on the list to see the doctor. On
November 9, 2016, RN Ventrella called plaintiff to the
medical unit and informed him that he was on the list.
Although plaintiff complained of pain, she did not prescribe
December 4, 2016, plaintiff submitted a Health Services
Review Grievance seeking an examination and treatment for
pain. On December 24, 2016, Dr. Ruiz examined plaintiff. Dr.
Ruiz ordered lab tests and told plaintiff that he would be
seen for a follow-up examination. Dr. Ruiz did not prescribe
January 23, 2017, plaintiff submitted an inmate request
seeking the results of the lab tests and complaining about
pain. On January 26, 2017, he submitted a second request
asking if he was on the list for a follow-up visit and again
complaining about pain. On January 29, 2017, RN Ventrella
called plaintiff to the medical unit and discussed the test
results. She disregarded his complaints of pain.
lists four legal claims in his complaint: (1) deliberate
indifference, (2) medical malpractice, (3) intentional
infliction of severe pain, and (4) cruel and unusual
punishment. For each of these claims, plaintiff states that
the defendants violated his rights under the First, Fourth,
Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments. In addition, within
the section of the complaint titled “Jurisdiction and
Venue, ” plaintiff references the First and Eighth
Amendments and generally refers to state tort law. Plaintiff
has named the defendants in individual and official
capacities and seeks damages as well as declaratory and
Official Capacity Claims
seeks compensatory and punitive damages but does not indicate
the capacity in which he seeks these damages. The Eleventh
Amendment bars claims for damages against state officials in
their official capacity unless the state waives this immunity
or Congress abrogates it; exceptions are not applicable here.
Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 169 (1995).
Accordingly, all official capacity claims for damages against
the defendants are dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
also seeks declaratory relief in the form of a declaration
that the actions described in the complaint violated his
constitutional rights. Declaratory relief operates
prospectively. It is intended to enable parties to adjudicate
claims before either party suffers significant damages.
Orr v. Waterbury Police Dep't., No.
3:17-cv-788(VAB), 2018 WL 780218, at *7 (D. Conn. Feb. 8,
2018) (citations omitted). In Orr, the court
dismissed the request for declaratory relief because the
request related only to past actions; the plaintiff had not
identified any legal issues that could be resolved by
declaratory relief. Id. Similarly, plaintiff seeks a
declaration regarding past actions. Thus, the request for
declaratory relief is inappropriate and is dismissed pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1).
plaintiff seeks injunctive relief “for any medical
issues that may arise from the lack of medical
attention.” Doc. #1 at 8, ¶ 32. To state a claim
for permanent injunctive relief, plaintiff must allege facts
showing the absence of an adequate remedy at law and
irreparable harm should relief be denied. Martin v. Shell
Oil Co., 180 F.Supp.2d 313, 323 (D. Conn. 2002) (citing
New York State Nat'l Org. for Women v. Terry,
886 F.2d 1339, 1362 (2d Cir. 1989)). Irreparable harm cannot
be remote or speculative. Fair Haven Development Corp. v.
DeStefano, No. Civ. A. ...