Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Williamson v. University of Connecticut

United States District Court, D. Connecticut

April 17, 2019

CLARENCE K. WILLIAMSON, Plaintiff,
v.
UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT, Defendant.

          INITIAL REVIEW ORDER

          Michael P. Shea, United States District Judge.

         The plaintiff, Clarence K. Williamson, is incarcerated at the Willard-Cybulski Correctional Institution in Enfield, Connecticut. He has filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the University of Connecticut. For the reasons set forth below, the complaint will be dismissed.

         I. Standard of Review

         Pursuant 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. This standard applies when an inmate is proceeding in forma pauperis as well as when an inmate has paid the filing fee. See Carr v. Dvorin, 171 F.3d 115 (2d Cir. 1999) (per curiam).

         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 court notes that the first page of the complaint includes the following designation: “Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Amended Complaint” and also includes the docket number and case caption assigned to a case filed by the plaintiff in state court, Williamson v. University of Connecticut, No. NNH-cv-17-5038481-S. See Compl., at 1. A review of the docket in the state court case reflects that on October 16, 2017, a judge granted a motion to dismiss filed by the University of Connecticut and closed the case. See Williamson v. University of Connecticut, No. NNH-cv-17-5038481-S (Order granting motion to dismiss, Entry Nos. 102.10, 106.10).[1]

         The plaintiff alleges that he has been “warehoused in the custody and care of the Department of Correction since August 1, 2012.” See Compl. at 4 ¶ 8. On October 25, 2012, Dr. Naqvi, a physician assigned to provide medical treatment to inmates at Walker Correctional Institution (“Walker”), reviewed and signed off on an x-ray of the plaintiff's left knee, but recommended no follow-up or examination of the plaintiff's knee. See Id. at 2 ¶ 4 & at 4 ¶ 10. In 2013, at MacDougall Correctional Institution (“MacDougall”), Dr. Pillai examined the plaintiff in response to his complaints of pain and an inability to fully extend his left knee. See Id. at 3 ¶ 5 & at 5 ¶ 11. Dr. Pillai recommended no follow-up examination and did not refer the plaintiff for an MRI of his left knee. See Id. at 5 ¶ 11.

         At some point, Dr. O'Hallerin replaced Dr. Pillai as the plaintiff's medical provider at MacDougall and examined the plaintiff's left knee. See Id. ¶ 12. Dr. O'Hallerin noted the possibility of a tear of the anterior cruciate ligament or of the lateral collateral ligament in the plaintiff's left knee. See Id. He issued the plaintiff a knee brace and suggested that the plaintiff undergo an MRI of his left knee. See Id. Dr. O'Hallerin did not follow-up with the plaintiff or schedule or arrange for the plaintiff to undergo an MRI of his left knee. See id.

         On February 20, 2015, Dr. Pillai replaced Dr. O'Hallerin as the plaintiff's medical provider at MacDougall. See Id. ¶ 12. On that date, the plaintiff complained of left knee pain. See Id. Dr. Pillai issued an order that the plaintiff undergo an x-ray of his left knee and verbally acknowledged that an MRI of the knee would be necessary. See Id. at 5-6 ¶ 13. Dr. Pillai did not schedule or arrange for the plaintiff to undergo an MRI of his left knee. See Id. at 6 ¶ 13.

         At some point before January 20, 2016, Dr. Blumberg became the plaintiff's medical provider at Bridgeport Correctional Center (“Bridgeport CC”). See Id. ¶ 14. In response to the plaintiff's complaints of left knee pain, Dr. Blumberg submitted a request to the Utilization Review Committee (“URC”) for approval of an MRI of the plaintiff's left knee. See Id. On January 20, 2016, the URC denied the request. See Id. On January 20, 2017, Dr. Blumberg submitted a second request to the URC. See Id. On March 3, 2017, the URC approved the request for an MRI. See id.

         On March 21, 2017, the plaintiff underwent an MRI of his left knee. See Id. ¶ 15. The MRI reflected: “(1) a chondral defect measuring 2 x 9mm at posterior medical femoral condyle[, ] (2) partial thickness fissure[, ] (3) non[-]displaced chondral flap[, and] (4) joint effusion/Baker's cyst.” Id. A medical staffer explained that the results of the MRI indicated “a lack of a well-stretch[ed] hamstring muscle.” Id.

         III. Discussion

         Although the body of the complaint includes allegations against Dr. Syed Johan Naqvi, Dr. Omprakash Pillai, Dr. O'Hallerin, and Dr. Vicki Sara Blumberg regarding medical treatment for the plaintiff's left knee, none of those physicians are listed in the caption of the complaint. See Id. at 1. Thus, Drs. Naqvi, Pillai, O'Hallerin, and Blumberg are not defendants in this ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.