United States District Court, D. Connecticut
MARCO A. MICHALSKI, Plaintiff,
DR. RICARDO RUIZ, et. al., Defendants.
RULING ON PENDING MOTIONS
A. BOLDEN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Michalski (“Plaintiff”), currently incarcerated
at Osborn Correctional Institution, and proceeding pro
se, has sued Dr. Ricardo Ruiz and Dr. Samuel Berkowitz
(“Defendants”) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Mr.
Michalski allegedly suffers from foot conditions, including
club feet and flat feet, and claims that both defendants were
deliberately indifferent to those conditions during his
confinement at Cheshire Correctional Institution between
September 2016 and September 2017.
before the Court are Mr. Michalski's motions for
preliminary injunction and a temporary restraining order, for
a judgment on the pleadings, for service, and for default.
following reasons, the Court DENIES the
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Michalski has a history of foot issues. He claims to have
clubfoot in both of his feet. Compl., at ¶ 5, ECF No. 1
(“Compl.”). Mr. Michalski also claims his feet
are subject to deformities. Id. Later in life, his
arches dropped, which he claims causes him constant pain and
discomfort. Id. at ¶ 6. To address these
issues, Mr. Michalski allegedly was prescribed arch supports
along with stretching, strengthening, and conditioning
exercises, which he says was ineffective in dealing with his
pain. Id. at ¶ ¶ 7, 8.
seeing a doctor about the issues, Mr. Michalski was treated
with steroid injections, physical therapy, and “quality
footwear.” Id. at ¶ ¶ 10, 11. In the
following eleven years, Plaintiff claims that he was able to
stave off foot pain. Id. at ¶ 13.
his April 2013 incarceration, however, Plaintiff claims that
his foot condition began to worsen. He claims that the
low-quality shoes available to him in prison have led to foot
issues because of a lack of support in the arch and ankle
along with other prison conditions. Id. at ¶
¶ 14-17. On or around September 2016, he requested
medical attention. Id. at ¶ 18. During his wait
for treatment, Plaintiff claims that his right foot became
swollen and painful on multiple occasions. Id. at
¶ ¶ 21, 22.
January 18, 2017, Mr. Michalski submitted a grievance about
his foot pain. Id. at ¶ 25.
next day, he saw Dr. Ruiz about blood test results for
unrelated issues. Id. at ¶ 26. Mr. Michalski
alleges that Dr. Ruiz did not examine his feet. Id.
Nor did he x-ray or otherwise treat Plaintiff's foot
issues. Id. Mr. Michalski claims that Dr. Ruiz
rushed him out of the office when Plaintiff tried to tell him
the doctor about his foot pain. Id. at ¶ 27.
February 15, 2017, Mr. Michalski submitted a complaint to the
health service administrator of the prison about his foot
pain. Id. at ¶ 29.
March 1, 2017, Mr. Michalski again saw Dr. Ruiz where
Plaintiff detailed his history of foot problems. Id.
at ¶ 30. Nine days later, Dr. Ruiz again met with Mr.
Michalski and allegedly prescribed Plaintiff shoe inserts
that Mr. Michalski claims were too big for him. Id.
at ¶ 31, 32. Two weeks later Dr. Ruiz allegedly insisted
that Plaintiff still buy shoes that were too big for him.
Id. at ¶ 33.
March 30, 2017, Mr. Michalski filed another grievance about
his foot pain. Id. at ¶ 38.
April 22, 2017, Mr. Michalski alleged filed another
grievance. Id. at ¶ 39. Four days later, Mr.
Michalski saw Dr. Ruiz, but the appointment was about the
grievance and not foot treatment. Id. at ¶ 40.
2, 2017, Mr. Michalski submitted another grievance regarding
his foot pain. Id. at ¶ 42. A few days later,
Plaintiff was allegedly told he ...