United States District Court, D. Connecticut
CLARENCE K. WILLIAMSON, Plaintiff,
UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT, Defendant.
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER
Michael P. Shea, United States District Judge.
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.
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. 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).
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
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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 ...