United States District Court, D. Connecticut
JOSHUA K. HABIB, Plaintiff,
CORRECTIONAL MANAGED HEALTH CARE, et al., Defendants.
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER
Michael P. Shea, United States District Judge.
Joshua K. Habib incarcerated at the Osborn Correctional
Institution in Somers, Connecticut, filed this case under 42
U.S.C. § 1983. The plaintiff names nine defendants,
former Commissioner Scott Semple, Dr. Syed Naqvi, Drs. John
Doe #1-#4, Robert Daddona, Correctional Managed Health Care
and the Department of Correction. He contends that the
defendants unreasonably denied and delayed medical care in
violation of his rights under the Eighth Amendment. The
plaintiff seeks an award of damages from the defendants in
their individual capacities.
Court must review prisoner civil complaints and dismiss any
portion of the 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. This requirement
applies to all prisoner filings regardless whether the
prisoner pays the filing fee. Nicholson v.
Lenczewski, 356 F.Supp.2d 157, 159 (D. Conn. 2005)
(citing Carr v. Dvorin, 171 F.3d 115 (2d Cir. 1999)
(per curiam)). Here, the plaintiff is proceeding in
detailed allegations are not required, the 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 plausible 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. “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.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
courts must interpret a pro se complaint liberally, the
complaint will be dismissed unless it includes sufficient
factual allegations to meet the standard of facial
plausibility.” See Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d
66, 72 (2d Cir. 2009) (citations omitted).
30, 2017, defendant Daddona asked the plaintiff to be a
volunteer painter. ECF No. 1. ¶ 17. He told the
plaintiff the job would afford him an opportunity to get out
of his cell for the day. Id., ¶ 18. The
plaintiff said that he had no official training for painting
but agreed to work so he could spend the day out of his cell.
Id., ¶ 19. Defendant Daddona directed the
plaintiff and three other inmates to gather paint supplies
and a wheeled ladder from the supply closet and brought them
to an office on the third floor of the New Haven Correctional
Center. Id., ¶¶ 20-21. Defendant Daddona
ordered the plaintiff to use the ladder to paint
hard-to-reach areas. Id., ¶ 22.
Daddona twice left the inmates alone, locked in the office.
They were unsupervised for about an hour each time.
Id., ¶ 25. Defendant Daddona's actions in
recruiting the inmates for the painting job, providing no
training, and leaving them unsupervised violated Department
of Correction Administrative Directives. Id.,
¶¶ 23-34, 26.
p.m., during the second time the inmates were left alone, the
plaintiff fell backwards off the ladder. He landed on his
right arm/wrist breaking it. Id., ¶ 27. The
plaintiff was unable to seek immediate medical attention
because he was locked in the office without a correctional
officer present. Id., ¶ 28. The other inmates
began banging on the door to attract an officer. About twenty
minutes later, Correctional Officer Wilkes unlocked the door,
acknowledged the plaintiff's injury, and escorted him to
a control bubble to call in the incident. Id.,
Officer Whaller, who was working in the control bubble,
expressed frustration that the inmates were left
unsupervised. Id., ¶ 30. Correctional Officer
Wilkes then escorted the plaintiff to the medical unit where
the staff arranged for his transfer to the UConn Health
Center. Id., ¶¶ 31-32.
he was waiting for the transport vehicle, two lieutenants
questioned the plaintiff about how he was injured. Defendant
Daddona arrived in the medical unit and forced the plaintiff
to exclude the fact that he was injured while using the
wheeled step-ladder. In addition, defendant Daddona answered
the lieutenants' questions for the plaintiff. As a result
the incident report contains a different version of the
incident. Id., ¶ 33. The plaintiff was in
severe pain and did not care which version of the incident
was included in the incident report. Id., ¶ 34.
Wilkes and Hines escorted the plaintiff to UConn at about
2:00 p.m. Id., ¶ 35. The plaintiff's
arm/wrist was x-rayed and diagnosed as fractured. An
orthopedic specialist re-set the bones and a cast was applied
from wrist to shoulder. Id., ¶ 36. Officers
Wilkes and Hines returned the plaintiff to the correctional
facility at about 11:00 p.m., the same day. Id.,
August 7, 2017, the plaintiff submitted a request form to
Lieutenant Mendillo asking him to preserve the surveillance
footage from the date of the incident. Although the office
did not include a camera, surveillance footage from the
surrounding corridors would show that defendant Daddona left
the inmates unsupervised. The plaintiff did not receive a
response to his request. Id., ¶ 38.
August 11, 2017, the plaintiff returned to UConn for a
consultation on his fracture. Id., ¶ 39. The
orthopedic specialist advised the plaintiff to keep his arm
elevated and to be gentle with it because the bones could
easily be displaced. The specialist ordered that x-rays be
taken at the correctional facility and requested a follow-up
examination in 1-2 weeks. Id., ¶ 40.
August 14, 2017, APRN Koslawy submitted a request to the
Utilization Review Committee (“URC”) seeking an
orthopedic follow-up. The doctors on the committee,
defendants John Does #1-#4, denied the request. Id.,
¶ 41. On September 7, 2017, APRN Koslawy submitted a
second request for a follow-up orthopedic visit. This request
was approved. Id., ¶ 42.
September 11, 2017, the plaintiff was transferred to Walker
Correctional Institution (“WCI”). Id.,
¶ 43. On September 29, 2017, he was brought to UConn for
the orthopedic follow-up visit. The plaintiff's arm was
x-rayed and the cast removed. Id., ¶ 44. The
specialist told the plaintiff that he did not need formal
physical therapy. Instead, he gave the plaintiff range of
motion exercises to perform five times per day. Id.,
plaintiff submitted several medical requests complaining that
the range of motion in his right wrist was not returning to
normal despite performing the prescribed exercises. On
October 27, 2017, the plaintiff saw an APRN in the WCI
medical unit. The APRN advised the plaintiff to continue
doing the exercises and said that, if his range of motion did
not improve in a month, further treatment would be requested.
Id., ¶ 46.
November 2, 2017, the plaintiff was transferred to MacDougall
Correctional Institution (“MCI”). Id.,
¶ 47. During November and December 2017, the plaintiff
submitted several requests to the MCI medical unit
complaining that the range of motion in his right wrist was
not improving and that he was experiencing shooting pain when
he turned his wrist. He also explained how the limited range
of motion affected his daily activities. Id., ¶
Dr. Naqvi saw the plaintiff on December 31, 2017. The
plaintiff explained that his range of motion had not improved
even though he had been consistently performing the
exercises. Id., ¶ 49. The plaintiff stated that
he was unable to perform simple tasks such as brushing his
teeth, tying his shoes, and opening a door with his right
hand. The plaintiff is right-handed and was forced to try to
write with his left hand. Id., ¶ 50. The
plaintiff told Dr. Naqvi that he has extreme difficulty
climbing to the top bunk because he cannot put any weight on
his right wrist and ...