United States District Court, D. Connecticut
RULING AND ORDER
MICHAEL P. SHEA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
The
plaintiff, Curtis Johnell Vines, is currently confined at
Cheshire Correctional Institution. He initiated this action
by filing a civil rights complaint against Physician
Assistant (“PA”) Kevin McCrystal, Correctional
Officer Olivio, and Correctional Officer Barrows.
On
November 19, 2018, pursuant to its review of the complaint
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), the court dismissed the
claims for damages against the defendants for violations of
federal law in their official capacities, the negligence
claim against the defendants in their individual and official
capacities for monetary damages, the request for a
declaration that the defendants violated federal law, and the
request for a declaration that the defendants' alleged
negligent conduct violated the plaintiff's rights under
Connecticut law, and dismissed without prejudice the Eighth
and Fourteenth Amendment claims against PA McCrystal in his
individual capacity. See Initial Review Order
(“IRO”), [ECF No. 14], at 12-13. The court
concluded that the Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference
to medical needs claim would proceed against Correctional
Officer Olivio and Correctional Officer Barrows in their
individual capacities. See Id. at 13.
The
court permitted the plaintiff to file an amended complaint,
within thirty days, to address the deficiencies in the
allegations against PA McCrystal as outlined in the
court's ruling. See Id. In response to the
court's ruling and order, the plaintiff has filed two
letters with attached exhibits. The Clerk has docketed the
letters as Notices. See First Notice, ECF No. 15;
Second Notice, ECF No. 16. The Notices are unsigned and do
not include a case caption with the name of the court and the
parties to the case, a request for relief, or any allegations
against the other two defendants, Officers Olivio and
Barrows. See Id. Thus, neither Notice constitutes a
properly filed amended complaint. Even if the court were to
construe the Notices as amended complaints, the allegations
in the Notices do not state plausible claims that PA
McCrystal violated the plaintiff's Constitutional rights.
I.
Standard of Review
Under
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).
Although
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
omitted).
II.
Facts
The
complaint included the following facts: On April 4, 2017, at
MacDougall-Walker Correctional Institution
(“MacDougall-Walker”), the plaintiff injured his
left knee playing basketball. Compl. at 6 -7 ¶¶ 1,
6 & at 28. The plaintiff could not move his left 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. A Medical Incident Report and Nursing Sick Call note
indicate that PA McCrystal also referred the plaintiff for an
x-ray of his left knee. See Id. at 28, 35-36. 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 and sent him back to his housing unit.
See id.
That
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. Neither Officer Olivio nor Officer
Barrows would contact or arrange for him to be sent to the
medical department. Id. 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. During 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, the plaintiff underwent an x-ray of his left knee.
See Id. at 7 ¶ 5. During a visit the medical
unit later that morning, a nurse explained to the plaintiff
that he had “broke[n]” his knee “in
half.” See Id. At approximately 9:45 a.m.,
correctional officers transferred the plaintiff to the
University of Connecticut Medical Center
(“UCONN”) for surgery. See Id. ¶ 6
& at 22, 24. A surgeon “put two screws in [the
plaintiff's] left knee.” See Id. ¶
6. Three days after the procedure, hospital
officials transferred the plaintiff back to
MacDougall-Walker. See id.
On May
16, 2017, the plaintiff filed a “medical
grievance” regarding PA McCrystal's treatment of
his knee injury. See Id. ¶ 9 & at 12. On
June 25, 2017, PA McCrystal denied the grievance. See
id.
There
are no new facts in the First Notice. See Notice,
ECF No. 15. In the Second Notice, the plaintiff alleges that
on May 1, 2017, he had an appointment with PA McCrystal.
During the appointment, PA McCrystal observed no evidence of
an infection in his left knee. See Notice, ECF No.
16, at 1. Six days later, on May 7, 2017, Dr. Naqvi
prescribed “Cipro because [the plaintiff's] knee
was infected.” Id.
III.
Discussion
The
First Notice may be liberally construed as including an
Eighth Amendment and a Fourteenth Amendment claim against PA
McCrystal. The Second Notice may be liberally construed as
including a First ...