United States District Court, D. Connecticut
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER
C. HALL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
plaintiff, Charles Marshall (“Marshall”),
incarcerated at the MacDougall-Walker Correctional
Institution in Suffield, Connecticut, has filed a Complaint
(Doc. No. 1) pro se under section 1983 of title 42
of the United States Code. Marshall sought leave to proceed
in forma pauperis. Motion for Leave to Proceed
in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 2). On March 15, 2019,
the court granted Marshall's application. Order (Doc. No.
Complaint names seven defendants: Supervisor Rachael
Lightner, Nurse Practitioners Jennifer Jerome and Kevin
McCrystal, and Drs. Naqvi, LaFrance, OHolloran, and Omprakash
Pillai. Marshall contends that the defendants were
deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs.
Marshall seeks damages as well as declaratory and injunctive
section 1915A of title 28 of the United States Code, the
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. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. In reviewing a
pro se complaint, the court must assume the truth of
the allegations, and interpret them liberally to “raise
the strongest arguments [they] suggest[ ].” Abbas
v. Dixon, 480 F.3d 636, 639 (2d Cir. 2007). 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.” Twombly, 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 Am.,
723 F.3d 399, 403 (2d Cir. 2013) (quoting Triestman v.
Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474 (2d Cir.
2006)); see also Tracy v. Freshwater, 623 F.3d 90,
101-02 (2d Cir. 2010) (discussing special rules of solicitude
for pro se litigants). However, notwithstanding this
liberal interpretation, a pro se complaint will not
survive dismissal unless the factual allegations meet the
plausibility standard. See, e.g., Fowlkes v.
Ironworkers Local 40, 790 F.3d 378, 387 (2d Cir. 2015).
February 21, 2012, while confined at Cheshire Correctional
Institution, Marshall experienced abdominal discomfort.
Compl. at ¶ 1. He wrote to the medical unit about bowel
blockage. Id. Marshall was prescribed laxatives.
Id. He was transferred to MacDougall-Walker
Correctional Institution on March 23, 2013. Id.
December 2, 2013, Marshall was again experiencing abdominal
pain. Id. at ¶ 2. Dr. Naqvi called him to the
medical unit for blood work. Id. On December 9,
2013, Marshall again complained of abdominal pain.
Id. at He was called to the medical unit for x-rays
and was again given laxatives. Id. at ¶ 3. On
December 22, 2013, Dr. Naqvi ordered another x-ray.
Id. at ¶ 4. On January 1, 2014, Marshall
learned that the x-ray showed his colon was filled with
stool. Id. at ¶ 5.
does not allege that he again complained of abdominal pain
until September 2014. Id. at ¶ 6. On September
3, 2014, Dr. OHolloran conducted an abdominal examination and
ordered a stool specimen. Id. On September 17, 2014,
Marshall returned to the medical unit for a follow-up
examination. Id. at ¶ 7. On September 25, 2014,
a nurse told Marshall that the Utilization Review Committee
(“URC”) was reviewing Dr. OHolloran's request
that Marshall undergo a colonoscopy. Id. at ¶
8. On May 18, 2015, Marshall went to the UConn Medical Center
for a colonoscopy consultation. Id. at ¶ 9.
8, 2015, Marshall saw Dr. Pillai about his complaints that
his abdominal pain was affecting his posture, back, and hip.
Id. at ¶ 10. Dr. Pillai ordered another stool
sample and x-ray. Id. Two days later, Marshall was
called to the medical unit for blood work. Id. at
6, 2015, Marshall was called to the medical unit for a
gastrointestinal consult and URC review. Id. at
¶ 12. On July 15, 2015, Marshall returned to the UConn
Medical Center for another colonoscopy consult. Id.
at ¶ 13. On September 6, 2015, Marshall underwent
colonoscopy prep in the medical unit and, on September 9,
2015, went to the UConn Medical Center for the colonoscopy.
Id. at ¶¶ 14-15. On November 24, 2015,
Nurse Practitioner McCrystal called Marshal to the medical
unit and told him that the colonoscopy results were normal.
Id. at ¶ 16.
January 20, 2016, Marshall went to the medical unit
complaining of severe abdominal pain. Id. at ¶
17. The doctor ordered an x-ray which showed stool blockage.
Id. On February 2, 2016, Marshall had a consultation
with Dr. LaFrance who ordered several laxatives. Id.
at ¶ 18. The following day, Marshall was called to the
medical unit for bloodwork. Id. at ¶ 19.
April 21, 2016, Marshall was seen in the mental health unit.
Id. at ¶ 20. His abdominal issues were causing
him to experience stress and fear that he was suffering from
cancer or some other long-term damage that would be
nonreversible if not caught early. Id.
10, 2016, Dr. LaFrance conducted a follow-up examination for
Marshall's abdominal issues, bloating, and pain and
discomfort affecting his back. Id. at ¶ 21. On
June 5, 2016, Dr. LaFrance conducted a follow-up on
Marshall's complaints of abdominal pain. Id. at
¶ 22. Dr. LaFrance told Marshall that ...