Davis v. Malloy et al

Filing 10

INITIAL REVIEW ORDER PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A on the ground that the complaint does not allege specific facts that give rise to plausible grounds for relief against any of the named defendants. The Clerk of Court shall close this case. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 1/2/2017. (Gruber, Sarah)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
MICHAEL DAVIS, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
No. 3:16-cv-1614 (JAM)

v.
DANNEL P. MALLOY, et al.,
Defendants.

INITIAL REVIEW ORDER PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915A
Plaintiff Michael Davis is a prisoner in the custody of the Connecticut Department of
Correction at the Osborn Correctional Institution. He has filed a complaint pro se and in forma
pauperis on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, alleging violation of his
constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. For the reasons set forth below, the complaint is
dismissed.
BACKGROUND
The following facts as alleged in two handwritten pages in the complaint are accepted as
true only for purposes of this initial ruling. Since a young age, plaintiff has suffered from serious
mental illness and has required long-term psychiatric care and treatment. He alleges that
defendants—Governor Dannel P. Malloy, Commissioner Scott Semple, Deputy Commissioner
Monica Ellison, Director Kathleen Maurer, and Warden Henry Falcone—have denied him
proper psychiatric care and treatment since 2009. Specifically, plaintiff alleges that defendants
engage in the warehousing of mentally ill inmates at Garner Correctional Institution, where the
only psychiatric treatment he and others receive is medication and disruptive group therapy. He
has on numerous occasions written to defendants about this issue, but they have ignored him. He
also alleges that defendant Falcone transferred him on some unspecified date to Garner.

Plaintiff states that his allegations ring true for many other similarly situated prisoners
and that, together, they seek $250,000,000 in damages and transfer to the care and custody of the
Commissioner Mental Health and Addiction Services so that they will receive appropriate mental
health care.
DISCUSSION
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), the Court must review prisoner civil complaints
against governmental actors and “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.” Id. The allegations of a pro se
plaintiff’s complaint must be read liberally to raise the strongest arguments that they suggest. See
Tracy v. Freshwater, 623 F.3d 90, 101–02 (2d Cir. 2010) (discussing special rules of solicitude
for pro se litigants).
In recent years, the Supreme Court has set forth a threshold “plausibility” pleading
standard for courts to evaluate the adequacy of federal court complaints. A complaint must allege
enough facts—as distinct from legal conclusions—that give rise to plausible grounds for relief.
See, e.g., Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,
570 (2007). Notwithstanding the rule of liberal interpretation of a pro se complaint, a pro se
complaint may not survive dismissal if its factual allegations do not meet the basic plausibility
standard. See, e.g., Fowlkes v. Ironworkers Local 40, 790 F.3d 378, 387 (2d Cir. 2015).
Plaintiff purports to file this complaint on behalf of himself and similarly situated
prisoners. A non-attorney “pro se litigant, however, is not empowered to proceed on behalf of
anyone other than himself.” McCall v. Pataki, 232 F.3d 321, 322 (2d Cir. 2000) (citing 28 U.S.C.

2

§ 1654). Because plaintiff may not represent other prisoners, I will dismiss this action to the
extent plaintiff pursues the claim on behalf of any prisoner other than himself.
As to plaintiff’s own claim, I understand the complaint principally to allege that he has
not received adequate medical care for his mental illness. It is well established that “[a] prison
official’s ‘deliberate indifference’ to a substantial risk of serious harm to an inmate violates the
Eighth Amendment.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 828 (1994). A deliberate indifference
claim has two component requirements. The first requirement is objective: the alleged
deprivation must be serious. The second requirement is subjective: the charged officials must act
with a subjectively reckless state of mind in their denial of medical care. See Spavone v. New
York State Dept. of Correctional Servs., 719 F.3d 127, 138 (2d Cir. 2013); Hilton v. Wright, 673
F.3d 120, 127 (2d Cir. 2012).
Here, plaintiff alleges that he has been denied proper mental health treatment, but omits
any allegations regarding his diagnoses, what treatment (other than medication and group
therapy) he has been denied, and what harm he has encountered from the omitted treatment
options. Nor does he identify any dates of any alleged failures of medical treatment except for a
broad and continuous range from 2008 to the present. Without specific allegations relating to the
denial of care for plaintiff and demonstrating the personal involvement of each of the defendants
with this denial of care, see Grullon v. City of New Haven, 720 F.3d 133, 138–39 (2d Cir. 2013),
the Court cannot conclude that any of the defendants have acted with deliberate indifference to
plaintiff’s serious medical needs. See Selah v. N.Y.S. Docs Com’r, 2006 WL 2051402, at *4
(S.D.N.Y. 2006) (Chin, J.) (dismissing plaintiff’s vague allegations of deliberate indifference to
medical needs). Plaintiff has not alleged facts that give rise to plausible grounds for relief.

3

CONCLUSION
The complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A on the
ground that the complaint does not allege specific facts that give rise to plausible grounds for
relief against any of the named defendants.
The Clerk of Court shall close this case.
Dated at New Haven, Connecticut this 2nd day of January 2017.
/s/ Jeffrey Alker Meyer
Jeffrey Alker Meyer
United States District Judge

4