Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
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.

Michalski v. Erfe

United States District Court, D. Connecticut

January 10, 2020

MARCO MICHALSKI, Plaintiff,
v.
SCOTT ERFE, ET AL., Defendants.

          RULING ON MOTION TO RECONSIDER

          VICTOR A. BOLDEN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Marco Michalski (“Plaintiff”) is currently incarcerated at the Osborn Correctional Institution (“Osborn”). Mr. Michalski filed a Complaint asserting constitutional claims against several defendants regarding his dental treatment at Cheshire Correctional Institution (“Cheshire”). On November 13, 2019, the Court issued an initial review order dismissing some of Mr. Michalski's claims, but allowing some of his deliberate indifference claims under the Eighth Amendment to proceed against some defendants. In the same order, the Court also denied Mr. Michalski's motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction.

         On November 27, 2019, Mr. Michalski filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that his motion for a temporary restraining order against Dr. Benoit should be granted. Mot. for Recons., ECF No. 34 (Nov. 27, 2019).

         For the following reasons, Mr. Michalski's motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

         I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

         Familiarity with the background of this case is assumed. See Initial Review Order. The facts and procedure are summarized briefly here as relevant to the motion for reconsideration:

         On December 13, 2017, Mr. Michalski filed his original Complaint, bringing claims against numerous defendants, including Dr. Bruce Lichtenstein, a dentist employed by Correctional Managed Health Care and stationed at Cheshire; Yvonne Borchert, a dental assistant employed by Correctional Managed Health Care and stationed at Cheshire; and Dr. Richard Benoit, the Director of Dental Services for the Connecticut Department of Correction. Compl., ECF No. 1 (Dec. 13, 2017).

         Mr. Michalski subsequently amend his Complaint four times to alter defendants, add factual allegations and claims, and once to correct deficiencies in response to a Court order. See Mot. to Amend/Correct, ECF No. 7 (Jan. 29, 2018); Second Am. Compl., ECF No. 17 (Aug. 29, 2018); Mot. to Amend/Correct, ECF No. 22 (July 5, 2019); Mot. to Amend/Correct, ECF No. 25 (Sept. 30, 2019).

         In his Fourth Amended Complaint, Mr. Michalski alleges that while he was incarcerated at Cheshire, Dr. Benoit, entered into an agreement with Mr. Michalski at a court hearing in December 2017 to provide Mr. Michalski with the dental services he allegedly needed. Fourth Am. Compl. ¶ 61, ECF No. 25-1 (Sept. 30, 2019). On March 19, 2018, Dr. Benoit allegedly came to Cheshire to place a crown on Mr. Michalski's tooth. Id. ¶ 69. Mr. Michalski alleges, however, that Dr. Benoit “only filled the tooth back in and put a temporary cap on the tooth rather than a crown.” Id. Dr. Benoit also allegedly made notes in Mr. Michalski's dental record, including “need crown per habeas court.” Fourth Am. Compl. Ex. S, ECF No. 25-1 at 69 (DOC Dental Record, note by Richard Benoit (Mar. 9, 2018)).

         On March 29, 2018, Mr. Michalski was allegedly transferred to Osborn. Notice of Change of Address, ECF No. 14 (Apr. 9, 2018).

         On May 29, 2019, Mr. Michalski moved for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) and preliminary injunction against two defendants, Dr. Lichtenstein and Ms. Borchert, seeking an order requiring them to arrange for an examination and a plan of treatment for his alleged dental issues. Mot. for Temp. Restraining Order and Prelim. Inj., ECF No. 20 (May 29, 2019) (“Mot. TRO & Prelim. Inj.”).

         On September 30, 2019, Mr. Michalski filed a memorandum in support of his motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, along with an affidavit and proposed order. Mem. TRO & Prelim. Inj.; Affidavit of Marco A. Michalski, ECF No. 27-1 (Sept. 30, 2019); Text of Proposed Order, ECF No. 27-2 (Sept. 30, 2019). His proposed order seeks to enjoin Dr. Benoit in addition to the other two Defendants. Text of Proposed Order. The Court construed Mr. Michalski's motion to apply to all three Defendants: Dr. Lichtenstein, Ms. Borchert, and Dr. Benoit. Initial Review Order at 12 (citing Sykes v. Bank of Am., 723 F.3d 399, 403 (2d Cir. 2013) (“Pro se complaints must be construed liberally and interpreted to raise the strongest arguments that they suggest.” (internal citation and quotation marks omitted))).

         On November 13, 2019, the Court issued an initial review order dismissing many of Mr. Michalski's claims but allowing some Eighth Amendment claims to proceed for damages against some defendants, including Dr. Lichtenstein, Ms. Borchert, and Dr. Benoit, in their individual capacities; and for injunctive relief against Commissioner Cook and Mr. Furey in their official capacities. Initial Review Order, ECF No. 29, at 34 (Nov. 13, 2019). In the same order, the Court also denied Mr. Michalski's motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction as moot. Initial Review Order at 31.

         On November 27, 2019, On November 27, 2019, Mr. Michalski filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that his motion for a temporary restraining order against Dr. Benoit should ...


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.