United States District Court, D. Connecticut
KEVIN W. CURRYTTO, Plaintiff,
RICHARD FUREY et al., Defendants.
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §
Jeffrey Alker Meyer United States District Judge
Plaintiff Kevin W. Currytto is a prisoner in the custody of
the Connecticut Department of Correction. He has filed a
complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging in
principal part that prison officials were deliberately
indifferent to his serious mental health needs. For the
reasons set forth below, I will dismiss the complaint in part
and allow certain claims to proceed against two defendants.
Plaintiff is a sentenced prisoner at Osborn Correctional
Institution. His amended complaint names the following
defendants: PRN Brian Bracci, Correctional Officer Greaves,
Correctional Officer Hutton, Dr. M. Frayne, Dr. Gaw, Dr.
Leonard Santassico, Health Services Administrator Richard
Furey, LPC Matthew Clarke, Nurse/Health Services Grievance
Coordinator Sharon Beckford, Parole Officer Roman, Social
Worker Kevin Powers, Warden G. Wright, and six John Doe
following allegations from the complaint are accepted as true
for purposes of the Court's initial review. Currytto has
been diagnosed with anxiety disorder, bipolar disorder, and
delusional disorder, and is “sometimes considered to be
schizoaffective.” Doc. #10 at 7. Specifically, he has a
“traumatic history” with the police spanning 25
years; his delusions, which typically concern police
activity, provoke schizoaffective responses. Id. at
to September 26, 2017, Currytto was under the care of Dr.
Leonard Santassico at Walker Correctional Institution.
Ibid. Dr. Santassico became concerned about
Currytto's mental health after Currytto began suffering
paranoid delusions. Ibid. Accordingly, Dr.
Santassico raised Currytto's medical needs score from
level 3 to level 4 and arranged for Currytto's transfer
to Osborn. Ibid.
was transferred to Osborn on September 26, 2017, Currytto was
admitted to the G-Block Mental Health Unit under the care of
Dr. Gaw and Dr. M. Frayne. Id. at 7. During his time
in G-Block, Currytto met with Clarke for several therapy
sessions. Ibid. On or about December 17, 2017,
Currytto's medical needs score was lowered to a level 3
and he was transferred to general population and assigned to
Clarke's caseload. Ibid. Currytto was to be
“closely monitored” and provided with outpatient
health services, including meetings with a mental health
professional at least once every 30 days. Id. at
met with Currytto for a therapy session on December 22, 2017,
and he told Currytto that he would be called to individual
and group therapy sessions. Id. at 9. Clarke then
appeared at Currytto's mental health parole sentencing
hearing on January 10, 2018. Id. But then from
January 10 to May 1, 2018, Clarke provided no treatment to
Currytto; he did not create a treatment plan for Currytto and
did not schedule or call Currytto to individual or group
therapy sessions. Ibid. To make matters worse,
Clarke falsely indicated on Currytto's medical file that
he had provided treatment to Currytto on January 15, 2018,
March 5, 2018, April 6, 2018, and April 10, 2018.
Id. at 10. According to Currytto, Dr. Gaw and Dr.
Frayne failed to adequately supervise Clarke during this time
and thereby contributed to the mental health deterioration
Currytto suffered due to his lack of treatment. Id.
April 24, 2018, Currytto received copies of his medical
records and discovered Clarke's falsification of his
mental health record. Id. at 12. On the same day,
Currytto reported Clarke to the Warden's Office for
failing to provide treatment and falsifying his medical
records. Ibid. On April 26, 2018, Warden Wright
informed Currytto that a copy of Currytto's report would
be passed along to Furey. Id. at 43. Furey did not
interview Currytto, investigate, or “otherwise respond
administratively” to the report. Id. at 12.
also filed an inmate grievance against Clarke. Ibid.
On April 30, 2018, Currytto met with Dr. Frayne to discuss
his grievance. Id. at 13. At this grievance review
meeting, Currytto told Dr. Frayne that he felt his
therapeutic relationship with Clarke had broken down, and
that he no longer wished to be treated by Clarke.
Ibid. According to Currytto, Dr. Frayne treated him
as a “problematic inmate” for filing the inmate
grievance. Id. at 12. Currytto had secured video
evidence to show that he was not released from his housing
unit at the dates and times Clarke had indicated they met for
therapy sessions, and he informed Dr. Frayne that he had this
evidence in his possession. Id. at 13-14. However,
Dr. Frayne was “disinterested” and
“indifferent.” Id. at 14. Dr. Frayne
took no action to correct Currytto's record, investigate
or discipline Clarke, or mend the therapeutic relationship
between Currytto and Clarke. Ibid. He also took no
action to secure alternate means of treatment for Currytto
given what Currytto felt to be the irreparable breakdown in
the therapeutic relationship between himself and Clarke.
Id. at 15. Instead, Dr. Frayne disposed of
Currytto's grievance by indicating that “no further
action” was required. Id. at 14.
1, 2018, pursuant to Dr. Frayne's referral, Currytto was
called down to the mental health unit to meet with Clarke for
treatment. Id. at 14. Currytto told Clarke that he
no longer wished to meet with him due to Clarke's
falsification of his record. Id. at 16. Clarke
responded that he had “see[n]” Currytto in the
main hallway of Osborn. Currytto challenges the accuracy of
this statement, contending that he had only seen Clarke once
in the hallway. Ibid. Currytto felt that his mental
health was deleteriously affected by this session.
Ibid. On May 1, 2018, he filed a second grievance
against Dr. Frayne for failing to investigate Currytto's
first grievance and to provide Currytto with treatment, and
against Clarke. Id. at 16-17.
to Currytto, RN Beckford and Furey were responsible for
overseeing the grievance system. Id. at 17. He
claims they were “deliberately indifferent” in
their management of the grievance system, and that their
failures to correct the system, which in turn prevented the
proper and timely investigation of his complaints, prevented
him from receiving timely medical treatment. Id. at
6, 2018, Clarke called Currytto to G-Block for a treatment
session. Id. at 19. Currytto again informed Clarke
that he no longer wished to receive treatment from him.
According to Currytto, Dr. Frayne and Clarke were
“attempting to create the impression that [he] was
suffering delusions” regarding his complaints about
them both. Id. at 20. All of this caused
Currytto's mental health to further deteriorate, and he
had “numerous schizoaffective/delusional clashes”
with Osborn staff members. Ibid. Officers Hutton and
Greaves contacted G-Block with their concerns about
Currytto's mental health. Id. at 21.
Subsequently, Kevin Powers, a social worker, interviewed
Currytto and took him onto his own caseload on July 11, 2018,
at which point Currytto began receiving medical treatment
once more. Ibid.
disposed of Currytto's May 1 complaint without
investigation on September 21, 2018. Id. at 22.
Although Currytto was supposed to be closely monitored, he
received an outpatient healthcare response on only five
occasions between January 10, 2018 and July 11, 2018 (January
10, 2018, April 30, 2018, May 1, 2018, June 6, 2018, July 11,
2018). Id. at 23. Moreover, Currytto received no
mental health treatment between January 10, 2018, and May 1,
2018. Ibid. Although Clarke attempted to resume
treatment on May 1, 2018, and again on June 6, 2018, Currytto
no longer wished to be in his care due to the breakdown in
the therapeutic relationship. Ibid.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court must review a
prisoner's civil complaint against a government entity or
governmental actors and “identify cognizable claims or
dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if
the complaint-(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state
a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks
monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such
relief.” If the prisoner is proceeding pro se,
the allegations of the complaint must be read liberally to
raise the strongest arguments that they suggest. See
Tracy v. Freshwater, 623 F.3d 90, 101-02 (2d Cir.
recent years, the Supreme Court has set forth a threshold
“plausibility” pleading standard for courts to
evaluate the adequacy of allegations in federal court
complaints. A complaint must allege enough facts-as distinct
from legal conclusions-that give rise to plausible grounds
for relief. See, e.g., Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 554, 570 (2007). Notwithstanding the
rule of liberal interpretation of a pro se
complaint, a pro se complaint may not survive
dismissal if its factual allegations do not meet the basic
plausibility standard. See, e.g., Fowlkes v.
Ironworkers Local 40, 790 F.3d 378, 387 (2d Cir. 2015).
alleges claims for violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA), for First Amendment retaliation, for
Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical
needs, and for Fourteenth Amendment denial of due process and