Reese v. Breton
| Decision Date | 02 March 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 3:18-cv-1465 (VAB),3:18-cv-1465 (VAB) |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut |
| Parties | MICHAEL REESE, Plaintiff, v. JOSEPH V. BRETON, et al., Defendants. |
Michael Reese ("Plaintiff"), currently incarcerated at Osborn Correctional Institution in Somers, Connecticut, filed this Complaint pro se under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Mr. Reese's complaint was received on August 29, 2018, Compl., ECF No. 1 (Aug. 29, 2018); and his motion to proceed in forma pauperis was granted on September 5, 2018, Order, ECF No. 6 (Sept. 5, 2018).
Mr. Reese alleges that Dr. Joseph V. Breton, Dr. Cary Robert Freston, the University of Connecticut Health Center Correctional Managed Health Care, Nurse Barbara LaFrance, Dr. Mohammed Memon, Dr. Raymond A. Castro, Dr. Ryu Yoshida, Dr. Augustur D. Massocca, Dr. Douglas W. Gibson, and Dr. Rafael Pacheco, were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs, and violated his rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq., and the Rehabilitation Act ("RA"), 29 U.S.C. § 794(a). He also asserts state law claims for medical malpractice, negligence, and violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. Section 4a-60.
Following a review of Mr. Reeese's claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), his federal claims are DISMISSED, but he may file an amended complaint by April 3, 2020.
On February 25, 2015, Mr. Reese allegedly injured his knee. Compl. at 10. Correctional staff allegedly told him to submit a sick call request. Mr. Reese allegedly did so the following day. On March 9, 2015, Mr. Reese allegedly submitted an emergency grievance on a request form complaining that he had not been seen. Id. He allegedly was told that he had used the wrong form and that the medical unit would evaluate his complaint.
On March 12, 2015, Mr. Reese allegedly submitted a second grievance. Id. The response allegedly indicated that he had no request on file and that "Medical can evaluate." Id. On March 13, 2015, Mr. Reese allegedly again wrote to the medical unit. Id. The response allegedly indicated that he had been instructed regarding emergency sick call protocol and that he has been seen on April 7, 2015. Id. On March 31, 2015, Mr. Reese allegedly submitted a level 2 grievance and was told that he had exhausted his remedies. Id.
On April 1, 2015, Mr. Reese allegedly requested to be seen at sick call. Id. Correctional Officer Rodriguez allegedly delivered the request in person. Id. Mr. Reese allegedly was seen at sick call and put on the list to see the doctor. Id. On August 6, 2015, Mr. Reese allegedly underwent an MRI and was approved for a surgical consult. Id.
Mr. Reese allegedly underwent knee surgery on October 28, 2015. Id. Dr. Freston allegedly permitted weight bearing as tolerated and instructed Mr. Reese to perform calf raises and leg lifts. Id. On November 5, 2015, Mr. Reese allegedly wrote to medical staff for instructions on how to do the knee exercises. Id. He allegedly wrote again on November 9, 2015. He allegedly had follow-up appointments with orthopedics and pain management. Id.
Mr. Reese allegedly submitted requests about pain management on November 23, 2015, and December 7, 2015. Id. On December 8, 2015, Mr. Reese allegedly submitted a request aboutphysical training and pain management. Id. In response to the December 8, 2015 request, he allegedly was told that there would be no physical training. Id. On December 22, 2015, Mr. Reese allegedly received a response to his grievance about pain management, stating, "We fixed it." Id.
On March 4, 2016, Mr. Reese allegedly requested an adjustment to his medication. Id. at 11. On June 3, 2016, he allegedly filed a medical habeas action. Id. On July 24, 2016 or September 1, 2016, Mr. Reese allegedly was seen by a doctor. Id. On November 5, 2016, Mr. Reese allegedly submitted a request complaining that the pain was spreading and his leg was "giving out." Id.
Ten months later, on September 5, 2017, Mr. Reese allegedly filed a grievance complaining that nothing had been done. Id. On September 15, 2017, Mr. Reese allegedly filed a grievance questioning why additional surgery was not being performed. Id. In response to the first grievance, a doctor allegedly examined Mr. Reese on September 18, 2017, and ordered an orthopedic consultation. Id. The second grievance allegedly was returned without disposition. Id.
On December 4, 2017, Mr. Reese allegedly went to the University of Connecticut Health Center, where a doctor allegedly gave him a steroid injection. Id. The doctor allegedly ordered physical training and a second injection. Id. On December 11, 2017, Mr. Reese allegedly received a response to his grievance relating to the MRI. Id. The response allegedly stated that Mr. Reese needed a new knee but was too young. Id. Mr. Reese allegedly submitted a level 2 grievance, although allegedly this was not the proper way to appeal a decision of the Utilization Review Committee. Id.
On January 21, 2018, Mr. Reese allegedly submitted a request asking when he wouldreturn to the University of Connecticut Health Center and when he would receive the second steroid injection. Id. The doctor allegedly indicated that he was appealing the Utilization Review Committee decision and that Mr. Reese would be seen at his follow-up visit. Id. At that visit, the second injection allegedly was ordered. Id. Mr. Reese allegedly will be seen to discuss physical therapy. Id.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), district courts must review prisoners' civil complaints against governmental actors and sua sponte "dismiss . . . any portion of [a] complaint [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." 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b); see also Liner v. Goord, 196 F.3d 132, 134 & n.1 (2d Cir. 1999) (); Tapia-Ortiz v. Winter, 185 F.3d 8, 11 (2d Cir. 1999) .
Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that a plaintiff plead only "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief," see Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), to provide the defendant "fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests," see Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007).
A plaintiff's "[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level" and assert a cause of action with enough heft to show entitlement to relief and"enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 570. A claim is facially plausible if "the 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).
Although the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not require "detailed factual allegations," a complaint must offer more than "labels and conclusions," "a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action," or "naked assertion[s]" devoid of "further factual enhancement." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-57. Plausibility at the pleading stage is nonetheless distinct from probability, and "a well-pleaded complaint may proceed even if it strikes a savvy judge that actual proof of [the claim] is improbable, and . . . recovery is very remote and unlikely." Id. at 556 (internal quotation marks omitted).
Complaints filed by pro se plaintiffs, however, "must be construed liberally and interpreted to raise the strongest arguments that they suggest." Sykes v. Bank of Am., 723 F.3d 399, 403 (2d Cir. 2013) (quoting Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F. 3d 471, 474 (2d Cir. 2006)) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Tracy v. Freshwater, 623 F. 3d 90, 101-02 (2d Cir. 2010) ().
The Eighth Amendment prohibits the infliction of "cruel and unusual punishments," U.S. Const. amend. VIII, which includes punishments that "involve the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain," Chance, 143 at 702 (quoting Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 173 (1976)). Although the Constitution does not require "comfortable" prison conditions, the EighthAmendment imposes certain duties on prison officials, to "ensure that inmates receive adequate food, clothing, shelter and medical care" and are confined in "safe[]" living conditions. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832-33 (1994) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
The Supreme Court and the Second Circuit have held that deliberate indifference by prison officials to a prisoner's serious medical or dental needs constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976); Chance, 143 F.3d at 702. To state a section 1983 claim for deliberate indifference to a serious medical or dental need, a plaintiff must meet a two-pronged test, requiring an analysis of the claim both objectively and subjectively.
Under the objective prong, the inmate's medical or dental need or condition must be "a serious one." Brock v Wright, 315 F.3d 158, 162 (2d Cir. 2003). Factors relevant to the seriousness of a medical or dental condition include whether "a reasonable doctor or patient would find [it] important and worthy of comment," whether the condition "significantly affects an individual's daily activities," and whether it causes "chronic and...
To continue reading
Request your trial