United States District Court, D. Connecticut
CLARENCE K. WILLIAMSON, Plaintiff,
DR. SYED NAQVI, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
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. Pending before the court is an amended
complaint. For the reasons set forth below, the court will
dismiss the amended complaint in part.
University of Connecticut was the only defendant listed in
the caption on the first page of the original complaint.
Although four physicians were listed as parties on subsequent
pages of the complaint, the court did not consider them to be
defendants because they were not listed in the caption as
required by Rule 10(a), Fed. R. Civ. P.
April 17, 2019, the court dismissed the allegations against
the University of Connecticut and permitted the plaintiff
thirty days to file an amended complaint to the extent that
he sought to assert claims against the four physicians who
were not listed as defendants in the caption of the
complaint. See Initial Review Order, ECF No. 11. The
court informed the plaintiff that if he chose to file an
amended complaint, it must include the dates on which each
physician treated, spoke to or met with him regarding his
knee injury; the name of the facility at which he met with,
spoke to or received treatment from each physician; the
nature of his requests for treatment; and a description of
any treatment provided by each physician. See Id. at
13, 2019, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Drs. Syed Naqvi, Omprakash
Pillai, O'Hallerin and Vicki Sara Blumberg. See
Am. Compl., ECF No. 12. For the reasons set forth below, the
amended complaint will be dismissed in part.
court reviews the amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(b) which requires a court to “dismiss . .
. any portion of [a] complaint [filed by a prisoner 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 is applicable 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 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
August 1, 2012, the plaintiff was “in The Custody of
the Connecticut Marshalls Department at New Haven Union
Avenue Detention.” See Am. Compl. at 7 ¶
1. On August 1, 2012, two state marshals used handcuffs to
hog-tie the plaintiff for over six hours. See Id.
During this incident, the plaintiff suffered an injury to his
left knee. He experienced swelling and an inability to fully
extend or bend his left knee or walk without limping. See
Id. The plaintiff submitted a complaint to the
Connecticut Marshal's Service regarding the lack of
treatment provided to him for the injuries caused by members
of Connecticut's Marshal's Service. See Id.
¶ 2. He received no response to his complaint. See
the plaintiff arrived at Walker Correctional Institution
(“Walker”), he submitted a request for medical
treatment for symptoms including pain and swelling in his
left knee. See Id. ¶ 3. On October 25, 2012,
Dr. Naqvi, a physician assigned to provide medical treatment
to inmates at Walker, reviewed x-rays of the plaintiff's
left knee, issued an order for a bottom bunk pass for the
plaintiff, and prescribed Naproxen to treat the
plaintiff's pain symptoms. See id.
point between July and August 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. ¶ 4. Dr. Pillai recommended no
follow-up treatment for the plaintiff. See id.
point in 2014, Dr. O'Hallerin replaced Dr. Pillai as the
physician assigned to provide medical treatment to inmates at
MacDougall. See Id. at 8 ¶ 5. The plaintiff
sought treatment from Dr. O'Hallerin because his knee was
painful and swollen and he could not fully extend it. See
Id. Dr. O'Hallerin examined the plaintiff's left
knee, noted the possibility of a tear of the anterior
cruciate ligament or of the lateral collateral ligament in
the knee, suggested that the plaintiff lose weight, issued
the plaintiff a knee brace, and prescribed a medication that
he explained would relieve the pressure on his left knee.
See Id. Dr. O'Hallerin also suggested that the
plaintiff undergo an MRI of his left knee. See Id.
“No Follow-up or MRI was performed.” See
February 20, 2015, Dr. Pillai replaced Dr. O'Hallerin as
the physician assigned to provide medical treatment to
inmates at MacDougall. See Id. ¶ 6. On that
date, the plaintiff complained of left knee pain. See
Id. Dr. Pillai issued an order that the plaintiff
undergo an MRI and x-ray of his left knee and verbally
acknowledged that an MRI of the knee was medically necessary.
See Id. at 5-6 ¶ 13. The plaintiff then alleges
that Dr. Pillai did not schedule or arrange for the plaintiff
to undergo an MRI of his left knee and did not follow up with
the plaintiff. See id.
point before January 20, 2016, prison officials at MacDougall
transferred the plaintiff to Bridgeport Correctional Center
(“Bridgeport CC”). See Id. ¶ 7. On
January 20, 2016, in response to the plaintiff's
complaints of left knee pain, Dr. Blumberg submitted a
request to the Utilization Review Committee
(“URC”) for approval ...