United States District Court, D. Connecticut
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE: MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (DE#28)
A. DOOLEY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Statement of the Case
October 15, 2018, Plaintiff, Dashawn Perry, a pro se
inmate currently confined at the Osborn Correctional
Institution (“Osborn”) in Somers, Connecticut,
brought a civil action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against
five state Department of Correction officials
(“Defendants”) for violating his Eighth Amendment
protection against cruel and unusual punishment: Health
Services Administrator Richard Furey, Dr. Cary Freston, Dr.
Johnny Wright, Correction Officer Ayala, and Warden Gary
Wright. Compl. (DE#1). Plaintiff claimed that Defendants
acted with deliberate indifference to his serious medical
needs, which stemmed from an ankle injury he sustained during
recreation at Osborn. See Initial Review Order
(DE#9) 4-5. This Court permitted his Eighth Amendment claim
to proceed against Defendants in their individual capacities
for damages and in their official capacities for injunctive
relief. Id. at 5. Defendants answered the complaint
on January 18, 2019. Answer (DE#18).
22, 2019, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for preliminary
injunctive relief, claiming that Defendants are continuing to
deprive him of “meaningful medical services and
reasonable accommodation[s]” for his ankle injury, from
which he endures ongoing pain. Mot. for Prelim. Inj. (DE#28)
at 3. He seeks injunctive relief in the form of single-cell
status, a bottom bunk assignment, pain medication,
“in-cell feed back status, ” a “light duty
work assignment, ” and “medical doctor
attention.” Id. at 1-2. Defendants have filed
an objection to the motion, contending that Plaintiff is
receiving medical treatment for his injury and that he cannot
establish either irreparable harm in the absence of such
preliminary injunctive relief or a substantial likelihood of
success on the merits of his Eighth Amendment claim.
Defs.' Obj. to Pl.'s Mot. for Prelim. Inj.
(“Defs.' Obj.”) (DE#29), 6-9. For the
following reasons, Plaintiff's motion is DENIED.
Court hereby incorporates the facts giving rise to the
Complaint as stated in the Initial Review Order:
On January 6, 2018, [Plaintiff] sustained a very painful
injury to his left ankle while playing basketball during
outside recreation at Osborn. Compl. ¶ 1. He immediately
went to the medical unit at Osborn seeking treatment.
Id. at ¶¶ 1-2. There, he was evaluated by
nursing staff who refused to divulge their names to
[Plaintiff]. Id. at ¶ 2. [Plaintiff] requested
medication to alleviate the pain he was experiencing along
with an x-ray, an appointment with a physician, and a
bottom-bunk pass, but the nursing staff denied his requests.
Id. at ¶¶ 2-3.
[Plaintiff] returned to his housing unit and wrote a request
to Administrator Furey, but Furey did not reply. Compl.
¶ 3. Several days later, [Plaintiff] saw Furey in one of
the hallways at Osborn, told him about his painful condition,
and asked him about his failure to respond to the request he
had written to him. Id. Furey responded, “Too
bad, you should [not] have . . . come to prison, ” and
then walked away. Id.
[Plaintiff] continued to write requests to correction
officers, counselors, and medical personnel about his
condition, but none of them responded. Compl. ¶ 4. After
waiting nearly a month for treatment, [Plaintiff] was called
to the medical unit and evaluated by Dr. Freston.
Id. at ¶ 5. Freston “did nothing”
for [Plaintiff]'s pain, but he ordered an x-ray and
consultation at the UConn Health Center. Id.
Meanwhile, [Plaintiff] was forced to climb up and down his
bunk with the painful ankle injury. Id.
While at the UConn Health Center, a physician provided
[Plaintiff] with a treatment plan, but Dr. Freston and
Administrator Furey failed to ensure that the treatment plan
was followed by medical staff at Osborn. Compl. ¶ 6.
[Plaintiff] wrote another formal request to Furey on February
26, 2018. Id. at ¶ 7. Furey responded on March
13, stating that [Plaintiff] had a medical appointment
scheduled with Dr. Wright. Id. However, Dr. Wright
told [Plaintiff] that he had to submit a formal request
before any evaluation. Id. [Plaintiff] complied, but
he never received an appointment with Dr. Wright or even a
reply to the formal request. Id. Several months
later, Furey finally responded to one of [Plaintiff]'s
requests, stating that [Plaintiff] had an appointment
scheduled in one week to be evaluated by Dr. Wright.
Id. at ¶ 8.
On April 11, 2018, [Plaintiff] was called to the medical unit
for an appointment with Dr. Wright. Compl. ¶ 9. While he
was waiting in the medical unit holding area, another inmate
asked [Plaintiff] if he could take his vital signs, but
[Plaintiff] refused, stating that he was there to see Dr.
Wright and that his vital signs were confidential.
Id. The inmate insisted that he wanted to take
[Plaintiff]'s vital signs, but [Plaintiff] adamantly
refused. Id. Correction Officer Ayala then
interfered and told [Plaintiff] that, if he did not let the
inmate take his vital signs, he would write him a
disciplinary report. Id. [Plaintiff] still refused,
and Ayala then sent him back to his housing unit.
Id. [Plaintiff] was unable to see Dr. Wright.
Id. at ¶ 10.
[Plaintiff] filed a formal complaint to Warden Wright
explaining that Ayala had refused to allow him to see the
medical doctor at Osborn, but Warden Wright did not respond.
Compl. ¶ 10. [Plaintiff] then followed up an
administrative remedy/grievance, which Warden Wright rejected
on the ground that [Plaintiff] never filed an inmate request
form. Id. [Plaintiff] did, however, file a request
for submitting his grievance. Id. [Plaintiff] later
spoke with Warden Wright as he toured his housing unit.
Id. Wright told him, “Nothing goes up the
chain of command without [my] approval.” Id.
[Plaintiff] told Wright that he believed Wright was
obstructing the administrative remedy process, to which
Wright replied, “Sue me, I don't care.”
Initial Review Order at 2-4.
support of his motion, Plaintiff states he requires pain
medication, further medical evaluation, a bottom bunk pass,
in-cell feed back status, a single cell, and a light duty
work assignment. He contends that Defendants have not taken
any corrective action in response to his injury or limited