Brown v. UConn Medical Group et al

Filing 2

PRISCS-INITIAL REVIEW ORDER. Signed by Judge Janet Bond Arterton on 10/4/2012. (Payton, R.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

KENYA BROWN,
Plaintiff,
v.
LEO ARNONE, et al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:

PRISONER
Case No. 3:12-cv-1305(JBA)

INITIAL REVIEW ORDER
The plaintiff, currently incarcerated at the MacDougallWalker Correctional Center in Suffield, Connecticut, has filed a
complaint pro se pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1083 (2000).

The

plaintiff alleges that the defendants, UCONN Medical Group,
H.S.A. Lightner, R.N. Latrice Brown, Nurse Supervisor Ann Mari
Dean, Nurse Jane Doe and Lt. Mecker violated his First, Fourth,
Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights following a prison bus
accident.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (2000), the 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.

Id.

In reviewing a pro se complaint, the court must assume the
truth of the allegations, and interpret them liberally to “raise
the strongest arguments [they] suggest[].”

Abbas v. Dixon, 480

F.3d 636, 639 (2d Cir. 2007).

Although 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 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, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (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.

But “‘[a] document

filed pro se is to be liberally construed and a pro se complaint,
however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent
standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’”

Boykin v.

KeyCorp, 521 F.3d 202, 214 (2d Cir. 2008) (quoting Erickson v.
Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007)).
The plaintiff alleges that, at approximately 7:30 p.m., on
August 8, 2012, the prison transport bus in which he was a
passenger was involved in an accident when leaving the Bridgeport
Correctional Center.
back in the accident.

The plaintiff injured his face, neck and
Initially, defendant Mecker and the other

transport officers, who are not defendants in this action, left
the inmates in the bus without access to fresh air.

Eventually,

they brought the inmates back inside the Bridgeport Correctional
Center and kept them in the gym.

The inmates remained in

handcuffs, leg shackles and tether chains and were not afforded

2

medical attention, bathroom access or water.
Over an hour later, the plaintiff was examined by defendants
Nurse Doe and Nurse Supervisor Dean.

Correctional staff would

not remove the restraints to permit examination of the
plaintiff’s neck and back.

As a result, these injuries were

omitted from the medical report.

In addition, the tight cuffs

were impeding circulation in the plaintiff’s hands.
The plaintiff returned to MacDougall-Walker Correctional
Center at approximately 11:30 p.m.

When the plaintiff was taken

to the medical department to get his evening medication,
defendant Brown refused to treat the plaintiff’s injuries.

She

told him to submit a sick call request the following day.

In the

following days, the plaintiff had difficulty seeing a doctor and
getting treatment for his injuries.

The plaintiff contends that

this denial of medical care was in retaliation for another
lawsuit he had filed.
In Counts Four through Nine, the plaintiff bases his claims
on the Fourth Amendment and in Counts Seventeen through Twentyone, on the Fourteenth Amendment.
inmate.1

The plaintiff is a sentenced

Thus, the Eighth Amendment “serves as the primary

source of substantive protection.”

1

Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S.

Department of Correction records reveal that the plaintiff
has been incarcerated since December 2002. In November 2003, he
was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of twenty years. See
www.ctinmateinfo.state.ct.us (last visited October 3, 2012).
3

312, 327 (1986).

The Fourth Amendment protects the rights of an

individual prior to arraignment.

See Powell v. Gardner, 891 F.2d

1039, 1044 (2d Cir. 1989) (Fourth Amendment standard applies
through time of arraignment or formal charge).

All of the

plaintiff’s Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment claims are based on
the same facts as his Eighth Amendment claims.

Accordingly, all

Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment claims are dismissed pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

See County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S.

833, 843 (1998) (“[I]f a constitutional claim is covered by a
specific constitutional provision . . . the claim must be
analyzed under the standard appropriate to that specific
provision, not under the rubric of substantive due process.”)
(internal quotation marks omitted).
The case will proceed on the plaintiff’s First Amendment
claims contained in Counts One through Three and his Eighth
Amendment claims contained in Counts Ten through Sixteen.
ORDERS
In accordance with the foregoing analysis, the court enters
the following orders:
(1)

The Fourth Amendment (Counts Four through Nine) and

Fourteenth Amendment (Counts Seventeen through Twenty-one) claims
are DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
(2)

The plaintiff has paid the filing fee to commence this

action and, therefore, is not entitled to have service effected

4

by the court.

The plaintiff shall effect service of the

complaint and a copy of this order on each defendant in
accordance with the requirements of Rule 4, Fed. R. Civ. P.
Service shall be effected by February 04, 2013.

Failure to file

a return of service by February 14, 2013 describing how service
was effected on each defendant will result in the dismissal of
all claims against any defendant not properly served.
(3)

The Pro Se Prisoner Litigation Office shall send a

courtesy copy of the Complaint and this Ruling and Order to the
Connecticut Attorney General and the Department of Correction
Office of Legal Affairs.
Entered this 4th day of October 2012, at New Haven,
Connecticut.
/s/
Janet Bond Arterton
United States District Judge

5