Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.

Eason v. Quinn

United States District Court, D. Connecticut

April 26, 2019

JUAN EASON, Plaintiff,
KELLY R. QUINN, et. al., Defendants.



         Juan Eason, currently incarcerated at MacDougall-Walker Correctional Institution (“MWCI”) in Suffield, Connecticut, and proceeding pro se, sued Connecticut Department of Correction (“DOC”) officials for constitutional violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in their individual and official capacities: Nurse Kelly R. Quinn, Nurse Henry Mushi, Nurse Mariam Grant, Dr. Omprakash Pillai, Nursing Supervisor Tawanna Furtick, and Dr. Monica Farinella (collectively “Defendants”). Complaint, ECF No. 1. Mr. Eason alleges violations of his Eighth Amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment by acting with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs, and seeks monetary, injunctive, and declaratory relief. Id. at ¶¶ 19-22.

         For the following reasons, the Court DISMISSES the claims against Nurse Furtick.


         A. Factual Allegations

         On April 5, 2018, while in the infirmary at MWCI, Mr. Eason allegedly informed Nurse Quinn of itching all over his body. Compl. ¶ 1. Mr. Eason had previously undergone knee replacement surgery at the University of Connecticut Hospital. Id. Nurse Quinn allegedly told Mr. Eason that she was not going to call the facility doctor “for some kind of itch that you are faking just to get some attention from me.” Id. at ¶ 2. When Nurse Quinn returned to work in the infirmary later than evening, Mr. Eason allegedly told her that his itch was worsening. Id. at ¶ 3. At that point, Nurse Quinn allegedly began cursing at Mr. Eason and told him to “stop it with the crying wolf, ” and allegedly said that he would not receive any medication. Id. at ¶ 4.

         Mr. Eason allegedly later noticed that a rash was developing on his right thigh and requested to be evaluated by another staff member. Compl. ¶ 5. Nurse Mushi allegedly then came to the infirmary and Mr. Eason allegedly explained to him the nature of his medical issue. Id. However, Nurse Mushi allegedly refused to look at his rash and told him that he was not going to look at anything. Id.

         Later that night, Nurse Grant allegedly came to the infirmary, and Mr. Eason allegedly tried to explain to her his medical issue. Compl. ¶ 6. Nurse Grant allegedly cut him off, explained that she had been briefed about his complaints, and told him not to “even try . . . with the fake B.S.” Id.

         After two hours, Mr. Eason allegedly was able to convince Nurse Grant that he needed medical attention. Compl. ¶ 7. Nurse Grant allegedly noticed the rash and called the facility doctor who gave Mr. Eason medication to stop the itching. Id.

         The next morning, Mr. Eason allegedly had to seek medical attention again because he was allegedly covered in the rash from head to toe and was experiencing difficulty breathing because his throat was swollen. Compl. ¶ 8. Dr. Pillai, who was in charge of the infirmary, allegedly did not attempt to find the cause of the rash. Id. at ¶ 9. Mr. Eason also allegedly claims that he did not receive his pain medication as part of his post-operative care treatment plan. Id.

         The treatment plan allegedly ordered by Mr. Eason's surgeon also provided for range of motion exercises to increase flexibility in his knee. Compl. ¶ 10. However, when Dr. Farinella discharged Mr. Eason from the infirmary, she allegedly never completed a discharge plan which should have included range of motion exercises. Id. at ¶ 11. Mr. Eason allegedly filed a number of medical grievances regarding his inability to receive range of motion exercises. ¶¶ 12- 14. On April 26, 2018, he allegedly was evaluated by Nurse Michaud, who informed him that, once a prisoner is discharged from the infirmary, he allegedly cannot return for range of motion exercises. Id. at ¶ 15.

         DOC Administrative Directive 8.1(6)(L) provides that “[t]he contracted health services provider and DOC shall provide qualified therapists to provide physical therapy, occupational therapy and rehabilitation therapy to inmates in DOC facilities. Physical and occupational therapy shall be limited to services that assist the inmate to achieve and maintain self-care and improved functioning in activities of daily living.” Id. at ¶ 16.

         On March 29, 2018, the day after his knee replacement surgery, Dr. Pillai allegedly signed off on an order for Mr. Eason to receive range of motion exercises. Id. at ¶ 17. Mr. Eason, however, alleges that he never received this therapy. Id.

         B. ...

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.