Adeyemi v. Lightner et al
PRISCS-INITIAL REVIEW ORDER DISMISSING 1 Complaint filed by Tyehimba A. Adeyemi Motion to Reopen accompanied by ( Amended Complaint due by 11/30/2012). Signed by Judge Janet Bond Arterton on 10/31/2012. (Payton, R.)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
TYEHIMBA A. ADEYEMI,
LIGHTNER, et al.,
Case No. 3:12-cv-1525(JBA)
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER
The plaintiff, currently incarcerated at the CorriganRadgowski Correctional Center in Uncasville, Connecticut, has
filed a complaint pro se pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1083 (2000).
The plaintiff alleges that the defendants, Medical Supervisor
Lightner, Infectious Disease Specialist Heidi Green and Medical
Grievance Coordinator Jane Doe, were deliberately indifferent to
his serious medical needs.
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.
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.”
F.3d 636, 639 (2d Cir. 2007).
Abbas v. Dixon, 480
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.’”
KeyCorp, 521 F.3d 202, 214 (2d Cir. 2008) (quoting Erickson v.
Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007)).
The plaintiff alleges that, beginning on February 9, 2011,
he requested an examination by the Infectious Disease Specialist
and submission by the specialist of a request to the Utilization
Review Committee for a liver biopsy and vitamin therapy.
plaintiff submitted several requests and followed-up with
grievances when the requests were not answered.
Since March 2010, Infectious Disease Specialist Green has
not conducted blood tests to determine whether the plaintiff had
elevated enzyme levels and assess the degree of liver damage and
has not provided any treatment.
In August, the plaintiff learned
that blood tests had been done to ascertain enzyme elevation
Although the plaintiff was on the sick call list in
August 2012, he still has not been seen by the Infectious Disease
To establish a constitutional claim for denial of medical
care, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant was
deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs.
Hathaway v. Coughlin, 37 F.3d 63, 66 (2d Cir. 1994).
two-part test for deliberate indifference to a serious medical
need embodies both an objective and a subjective component.
physical condition of the plaintiff must be sufficiently serious,
and the failure to render proper care must result from “a
sufficiently culpable state of mind.”
Id. at 66 (citing, inter
alia, Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298 (1991)).
acts with deliberate indifference when he “knows of and
disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety; the
official must both be aware of facts from which the inference
could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists,
and he must also draw that inference.”
Farmer v. Brennan, 511
U.S. 825, 837 (1994).
Although the plaintiff alleges that he was denied his
request for examination as a prerequisite to submission of a
request for liver biopsy, he has alleged no facts to suggest that
he suffers from a serious medical condition that would require
such a test.
In the complaint he assumes that he suffers from
The existence of a test of liver enzyme levels in
2010, does not establish that a liver biopsy is now necessary.
Absent any allegations showing that the plaintiff suffers from a
serious medical need, his claim for deliberate indifference to a
serious medical need fails.
In accordance with the foregoing analysis, the court enters
the following orders:
The complaint is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
The plaintiff may file a motion to reopen accompanied
by an amended complaint by November 30, 2012 if he can allege
facts showing that he suffers from a serious medical need that
would require the examination and test he seeks.
Entered this 31st day of October 2012, at New Haven,
Janet Bond Arterton
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?