Buie v. Naqvi et al

Filing 9

INITIAL REVIEW ORDER: This is case is dismissed, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), for failure to state a claim. The Clerk shall close this case. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 3/20/2015. (Pannu, C.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
ROBERT S. BUIE,
Plaintiff,
v.

No. 3:15-cv-342 (SRU)

JOHAR SYED NAQVI, et al.,
Defendants.
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER
The plaintiff, Robert S. Buie, currently incarcerated at the MacDougall-Walker
Correctional Institution in Suffield, Connecticut, commenced this action pro se pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. The Court received the complaint on March 6, 2015. Buie’s motion to proceed
in forma pauperis was granted on March 9, 2015. Buie names as defendants Drs. Naqvi and
O’Halloran. Buie alleges that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical
need.
Under section 1915 of Title 28 of the United States Code, 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
Atl. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555–56 (2007). Conclusory allegations are not sufficient.
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (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. Pro se documents are

liberally construed and interpreted to raise the strongest arguments they suggest. See Sykes v.
Bank of Am., 723 F.3d 399, 403 (2d Cir. 2013).

I.

Allegations
In late October 2013, Buie contracted a rash on most of his body. The rash was

accompanied by constant itching. As a result, Buie scratched himself, which caused scratch
marks and cuts on his body. Buie was seen by a nurse on November 5, 2013, and referred to a
doctor.
On December 10, 2013, Buie was seen by Dr. O’Halloran. The doctor could not
determine the exact source of the rash and prescribed hydrocortisone and gabapentin. Dr.
O’Halloran refused Buie’s request for a biopsy and blood tests.
On December 20, 2013, Dr. O’Halloran again saw Buie. He prescribed Benadryl and
triamcinoine cream for the rash. Dr. O’Halloran continued to deny Buie’s request for biopsy and
blood tests. On January 24, 2014, Dr. O’Halloran observed that Buie’s condition was worsening.
He prescribed a different cream to be used with the triamcinoione cream.
On February 6, 2014, Buie wrote to Dr. O’Halloran indicating that the rash had improved
somewhat but that itching still was a problem. On February 18, 2014, Buie was seen by a nurse
who told him that he was on the list to be seen by Dr. O’Halloran.
Buie was not seen by a doctor again until August 27, 2014, when he was seen by Dr.
Naqvi. When Buie again requested a biopsy and blood tests, Dr. Naqvi stated that he preferred
to wait a while before scheduling the procedures. On January 5, 2015, Buie saw Dr. Naqvi who
stated that he would order a biopsy and blood tests at the appropriate time.

2

II.

Discussion
To state a claim for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need, Buie must allege

facts sufficient to show both that his medical need was serious and that the defendants acted with
a sufficiently culpable state of mind. See Smith v. Carpenter, 316 F.3d 178, 184 (2d Cir. 2003)
(citing Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104–05 (1976)). There are both subjective and objective
components to the deliberate indifference standard. Hathaway v. Coughlin, 37 F.3d 63, 66 (2d
Cir. 1994), cert. denied sub nom. Foote v. Hathaway, 513 U.S. 1154 (1995). Objectively, the
alleged deprivation must be “sufficiently serious.” Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298 (1991).
The condition must produce death, degeneration or extreme pain. Hathaway v. Coughlin, 99
F.3d 550, 553 (2d Cir. 1996). Subjectively, the defendants must have been actually aware of a
substantial risk that the inmate would suffer serious harm as a result of their actions or inactions.
Salahuddin v. Goord, 467 F.3d 262, 279–80 (2d Cir. 2006). Negligence that would support a
claim for medical malpractice does not rise to the level of deliberate indifference and is not
cognizable under Section 1983. Id. Nor does a difference of opinion regarding what constitutes
an appropriate response and treatment constitute deliberate indifference. See Ventura v. Sinha,
379 Fed. App’x 1, 2–3 (2d Cir. 2010); Chance v. Armstrong, 143 F.3d 698, 702 (2d Cir. 1998).
Buie suffers from a rash. Persistent skin rashes do not constitute a sufficiently serious
medical condition to support a claim for deliberate indifference. See Lewal v. Wiley, 29 Fed.
App’x 26, 29 (2d Cir. 2002) (persistent rash is not a serious medical condition); Reid v. Nassau
Cnty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, No. 13-CV-1192 (SJF) (SIL), 2014 WL 4185195, at *20 (E.D.N.Y. Aug.
20, 2014) (citing cases). Further, even if Buie’s skin rash were serious, he has alleged only that
the defendant refused his request for a biopsy and blood tests as premature, preferring to try

3

other treatments first. A disagreement regarding treatment does not rise to the level of deliberate
indifference. Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim.

III.

Conclusion
The complaint is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). In light of the

dismissal of this case, Buie’s motion for appointment of counsel (doc. 4) is denied as moot. The
Clerk is directed to close this case.

It is so ordered.
Dated at Bridgeport, Connecticut, this 20th day of March 2015.

/s/ STEFAN R. UNDERHILL
Stefan R. Underhill
United States District Judge

4