United States District Court, D. Connecticut
ANTHONY D. ORR, Plaintiff,
TRULEIA R. CARRINGTON, ET AL., Defendants.
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER
Michael P. Shea United States District Judge.
plaintiff, Anthony D. Orr, is currently confined at Cheshire
Correctional Institution (“Cheshire”). He
initiated this action by filing a civil rights complaint
against Nurse Truleia R. Carrington, the Department of
Correction Health Services Unit, the City of Waterbury,
Connecticut, the Office of the Corporation Counsel for the
City of Waterbury, and John/Jane Doe Lawyer in the Office of
the Corporation Counsel for the City of Waterbury. For the
reasons set forth below, the complaint will be dismissed.
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
plaintiff states that he is confined at Cheshire because he
was convicted of violating his term of probation.
See Compl. at 9 ¶ 1. On May 15, 2017, an
attorney representing the City of Waterbury, Police Sergeant
Ferruci, and Police Officers Schmaling and Shea removed a
civil rights complaint filed by the plaintiff in the Superior
Court for the Judicial District of Waterbury to this court.
See Orr v. Waterbury Police Dep't, et al., No.
3:17cv788(VAB) (Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1). Two attorneys
representing the defendants in that action, Joseph A.
Mengacci and Linda T. Wihbey, work in the Office of
Corporation Counsel for the City of Waterbury, Connecticut.
See Id. (Notices of Appearance ECF Nos. 2, 5). On
February 9, 2018, in Orr v. Waterbury Police Dep't,
et al., No. 3:17cv788(VAB), Judge Bolden appointed Evan
I. Cohen, an attorney who works in the law firm of Finn Dixon
& Herling LLP, to represent the plaintiff as pro
bono counsel. See Id. (Order, ECF No. 32).
Attorney Cohen appeared as pro bono counsel for the
plaintiff on February 23, 2018. See Id. (Appearance,
ECF No. 34).
20, 2018, Nurse Carrington sent a copy of the plaintiff's
Department of Correction medical file to Finn Dixon &
Herling LLP. See Compl. at 10 ¶ 10. The
plaintiff also received a copy of his medical file on that
date. See id.
August 28, 2018, the plaintiff received an envelope from Ms.
Catherine Sommer, an employee at Finn Dixon & Herling
LLP, which contained a copy of his Department of Correction
medical file. See Id. at 9 ¶ 2. Ms. Sommer
informed the plaintiff that counsel for the defendants in
Orr v. Waterbury Police Dep't, et al., No.
3:17cv788(VAB) had sent her the copy of his medical file.
plaintiff did not sign a release to permit an attorney from
the Office of Corporation Counsel for the City of Waterbury
to possess a copy of his Department of Correction medical
file. See Id. ¶ 4. The plaintiff examined his
medical file and noticed that Nurse Carrington had signed a
certification indicating that she had mailed a copy of his
medical file to an unknown recipient on August 22, 2018.
See Id. ¶¶ 5, 7. The plaintiff did not see
a copy of a medical release signed by him in the file.
See Id. ¶ 6.
September 9, 2018, the plaintiff wrote to Nurse Carrington to
find out why she had mailed a copy of his medical file to the
Office of Corporation Counsel for the City of Waterbury.
See Id. ¶ 8. The plaintiff indicated that
attorneys in the Office of Corporation Counsel represented
Waterbury police defendants in his federal case, Orr v.
Waterbury Police Dep't, et al., No. 3:17cv788(VAB).
See Id. Nurse Carrington indicated that she had
given the plaintiff's attorneys a copy of his medical
file because the attorneys had a release. See Id.
plaintiff then sent a letter to Ms. Sommer to confirm that
Finn Dixon & Herling LLP had received a copy of his
medical file from the Office of Corporation Counsel for the
City of Waterbury. See Id. at 10 ¶ 11. On
October 10, 2018, Ms. Sommer verified that the Office of
Corporation Counsel for the City of Waterbury had mailed a
copy of his Department of Correction medical file to her
office at Finn Dixon & Herling LLP. See Id.
plaintiff contends that the defendants violated his right to
privacy under the Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act (“HIPAA”). For relief, the
plaintiff seeks an injunction requiring the Department of
Correction to obtain his written consent before they transfer
his medical records “not related to penological