United States District Court, D. Connecticut
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
C. Hall, United States District Judge.
October 12, 2018, the plaintiff, Gregory Perez
(“Perez”), an inmate currently confined at the
MacDougall-Walker Correctional Institution in Suffield,
Connecticut, filed a complaint pro se pursuant to
title 42, section 1983 of the United States Code against
three Connecticut Department of Correction
(“DOC”) employees in their individual and
official capacities: Commissioner Scott Semple, Dr. Naqvi,
and Warden Mulligan. Compl. (Doc. No. 1). Perez claimed that
the defendants acted negligently and violated his Eighth
Amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment by
acting with deliberate indifference to his sleep apnea
condition. Id. at 6.
October 30, 2018, Perez filed a Motion to Amend his Complaint
to add two new constitutional claims and a medical
malpractice claim against five new DOC officials: Captain
Danek, Lieutenant Stackavinni, Correction Officer Thompson,
Correction Officer Hermanewski, and Nurse Dave. See
generally Mot. to Amend Compl. (Doc. No. 9). In his
Motion, Perez claimed that the five new defendants acted with
deliberate indifference to a separate medical condition from
which he suffers; specifically, an open abscess in his
buttocks. Id. at 1, 2.
December 6, 2018, this court issued an Initial Review Order
and ruling on the Motion to Amend, which analyzed the factual
allegations stated in both the complaint and Perez's
motion to amend. Initial Review of Complaint & Ruling Re:
Mot. to Amend (“IRO”) (Doc. No. 12). The court
dismissed the Eighth Amendment claim regarding the sleep
apnea condition because Perez failed to allege any facts
showing how Semple, Naqvi, or Mulligan were personally
involved in the deprivation. Id. at 5-6. There were
no allegations showing how those defendants even became aware
of Perez's condition, let alone whether they had any role
in denying him access to treatment. Id. The court
noted that, aside from listing the defendants' names in
the caption of the complaint, Perez failed to even mention
their names in his factual allegations. Id.
court granted Perez's Motion to Amend to the extent Perez
sought leave to file an amended complaint. IRO at 7. However,
Perez did not attach an amended complaint to his Motion, and
therefore, the court denied the motion to the extent Perez
sought to add the new claim against Danek, Stackavinni,
Thompson, Hermanewski, and Dave regarding the open wound on
his buttocks. Id. at 8.
reviewing the factual allegations in the Complaint and the
Motion to Amend, the court dismissed the Complaint without
prejudice and ordered Perez to file an amended complaint
listing all defendants in the case caption and either (a)
restating his Eighth Amendment claim regarding his sleep
apnea condition, (b) stating his constitutional claims
regarding the open wound on his buttocks, or (c) stating both
claims. IRO at 8. The court instructed Perez that he
“must allege facts [in the amended complaint] showing
each defendant's personal involvement in the alleged
constitutional deprivation.” Id. Moreover, if
Perez elected to pursue both claims, he must show that they
“aris[e] out of the same transaction, occurrence, or
series of transactions of occurrences.” Id.
(quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 20). The court advised Perez that, if
he failed to file an amended complaint which complied with
the foregoing instructions, his case would be dismissed with
prejudice. Id. at 9.
January 22, 2019, Perez filed his Amended Complaint against
Naqvi, Semple, and three new defendants who were not
mentioned in either the initial complaint or motion to amend:
Nurse Chris, Deputy Warden Roach, and “MHU Social
Worker Shara.” Am. Compl. (Doc. No. 15). His Amended
Complaint restates his Eighth Amendment claim regarding his
sleep apnea condition, but does not mention the claim
addressed in his Motion to Amend regarding the open wound on
his buttocks. See Id. at 5-6. Because Perez has
failed to comply with this court's instruction that he
allege facts showing the defendants' personal involvement
in the alleged deprivation, the court dismisses the Amended
Complaint with prejudice.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
to title 28 section 1915A of the United States Code, this
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. Although detailed allegations are not
required, a 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.” Bell
Atlantic, 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 America, 723 F.3d 399, 403 (2d Cir.
2013) (quoting Triestman v. Federal Bureau of
Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474 (2d Cir. 2006)).
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS IN AMENDED COMPLAINT
April 11, 2018, Perez sent a request to the medical unit
stating that he had trouble sleeping. Am. Compl. at ¶ 1.
His sleep problem was noted in his medical file from Yale New
Haven Hospital. Id. at ¶ 2. On April 13, the
medical unit returned his request with a notation that read,
“Seen S/C.” Id. at ¶ 3. On July 22,
Perez filed a grievance against the medical unit.
Id. at ¶ 4. His grievance was returned on
August 16, with a notation that read, “ROI faxed to
Yale 8-16-18.” Id. at ¶ 5. The official
responding to the grievance also wrote that Dr. Naqvi would
submit a request to the Utilization Review Committee
(“URC”) once Perez's records arrived at the
facility. Id. at ¶ 6.
September 16, 2018, Perez filed an appeal of his grievance.
Id. at ¶ 7. The appeal was returned, stating
that Perez could not file an appeal “until [he] get[s]
a response back.” Id. at ¶ 7.
continues to have difficulty breathing when he sleeps.
Id. at ¶ 8. He takes medication for his mental
health conditions, but he is afraid of dying in his sleep.
Id. at ¶ 9.
ANALYSIS OF ...