Aldrich v. Farinella et al

Filing 10

PRISCS - INITIAL REVIEW ORDER. Denying as premature 6 Motion to Compel ; 8 Motion and for Default ; 9 Motion for Default Entry 55(a). Signed by Judge Dominic J. Squatrito on 10/6/11. (Corriette, M.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

ARTHUR ALDRICH,
Plaintiff,
v.
MONICA FARINELLA and NURSE
YVONNE,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

No. 3:11-CV-00508 (DJS)

INITIAL REVIEW ORDER
The plaintiff, Arthur Aldrich, proceeding pro se, brings
this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the defendants,
Monica Farinella and Nurse Yvonne, alleging deliberate
indifference to medical need in violation of the Eighth
Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Jurisdiction

exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
Aldrich is incarcerated at the MacDougall-Walker
Correctional Institution in Suffield, Connecticut.

The

defendants provide medical care to inmates at the Corrigan
Correctional Institution in Uncasville, Connecticut.
Aldrich suffers from acute asthma.

His claims in this

action derive from his dissatisfaction with the treatment he
received for this condition between October 2010 and February
2011, when he was held at the Corrigan facility.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), the Court must

1

preliminarily review a prisoner’s civil complaint seeking
redress from government employees.

In so doing, the Court must

identify cognizable claims and dismiss any portion of the
complaint that is frivolous, malicious, or 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(b).
A pro se complaint is adequately pled if its allegations
“can conceivably give rise to a viable claim.”
Girdich, 408 F.3d 124, 130 (2d Cir. 2005).

Phillips v.

Such a complaint,

“however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent
standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.”
v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007).

Erickson

Indeed, it must be

“liberally construed,” id., and interpreted “to raise the
strongest arguments that it suggests,” Chavis v. Chappius, 618
F.3d 162, 170 (2d Cir. 2010).
Here, the Court has reviewed Aldrich’s Complaint and
concludes that it contains sufficient allegations of deliberate
indifference to medical need to warrant service to the
defendants.

Accordingly, the Court orders as follows:

(1) The Pro Se Litigation Office shall ascertain the
current work address for each defendant in this action from the
Department of Correction Office of Legal Affairs and mail a
waiver of service of process request packet to each defendant in

2

his or her individual capacity no later than November 4, 2011,
and report to the Court on the status of those waiver requests
no later than December 2, 2011.

If any Defendant fails to

return the waiver request, the Pro Se Prisoner Litigation Office
shall make arrangements for in-person service by the U.S.
Marshals Service and that Defendant shall be required to pay the
costs of such service in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 4(d).
(2) The Pro Se Prisoner Litigation Office shall prepare
summons forms and send official capacity service packets to the
U.S. Marshal Service.

The U.S. Marshal is directed to effect

service of the Complaint on each of the defendants in her
official capacity at the Office of the Attorney General, 55 Elm
Street, Hartford, Connecticut 06141, no later than November 4,
2011, and to file returns of service no later than November 11,
2011.
(3) The Pro Se Prisoner Litigation Office shall send
written notice to the plaintiff of the status of this action,
along with a copy of this Order.
(4) The defendants shall file their response to the
Complaint, either an answer or motion to dismiss, no later than
January 6, 2012.

If the defendants choose to file an answer,

they shall admit or deny the allegations and respond to the
cognizable claim recited above.

The defendants may also include

3

any additional defenses permitted by the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.
(5) Discovery, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
26 through 37, shall be completed no later than June 1, 2012.
Discovery requests need not be filed with the Court.
(6) All motions for summary judgment shall be filed no
later than July 2, 2012.
(7) Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7(a), a nonmoving party
must respond to a dispositive motion no later than twenty-one
(21) days after the date the motion was filed.

If no response

is filed, or the response is not timely, the dispositive motion
can be granted absent objection.
(8) The plaintiff may not amend his Complaint to include
any additional claims or defendants without first obtaining
leave to do so from the Court.
(9) The Pro Se Prisoner Litigation Office shall send a
courtesy copy of the Complaint and this Order to the Connecticut
Attorney General and the Department of Correction Legal Affairs
Unit.
Finally, in light of the forgoing, Aldrich’s pending
Motions for Declaratory Relief (dkt. # 6), to Compel defendants
to Produce his Medical Records (dkt. # 8), and for Default (dkt.
# 9), are DENIED as premature.

Also, in another related action,

Aldrich has recently informed the Court that he is now receiving

4

the medication he needs to relieve his asthma symptoms.
Accordingly, his pending Motion for Injunctive Relief (dkt. # 4)
— which sought to remedy this problem — is DENIED as MOOT.

SO ORDERED this 6th day of October, 2011.

__________/s/DJS____________
DOMINIC J. SQUATRITO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5