Allen v. Sidaros et al

Filing 40

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS. The additional allegations in the amended complaint do not overcome this Court's previously stated grounds for dismissal. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the defendants' renewed motion to dismiss (Doc. # 35 ) , and the Court dismisses Allen's claims with prejudice in light of the fact that Allen still has not alleged plausible grounds for relief despite having been afforded the opportunity to file an amended complaint. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 1/17/23. (Wang, S.)

Case 3:20-cv-01276-JAM Document 40 Filed 01/17/23 Page 1 of 8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
MATTHEW ALLEN,
Plaintiff,
v.

No. 3:20-cv-1276 (JAM)

RAFIK SIDAROS et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS
Plaintiff Matthew Allen has filed an amended complaint against the defendants Dr. Rafik
Sidaros, Dr. Victoria Dreisbach, and the State of Connecticut alleging violations of his Fourth
and Eighth Amendment rights arising from his involuntary commitment and mental health
treatment at two state hospitals. I have previously granted a motion to dismiss Allen’s original
complaint, and the defendants have filed a renewed motion to dismiss. Because Allen’s amended
complaint does not overcome the deficiencies identified in my earlier ruling dismissing his
original complaint, I will grant the motion.
BACKGROUND
Allen was arrested in June 2017 for breach of peace and interfering with an officer, both
misdemeanors. 1 When he appeared before the court to refuse a plea bargain, the presiding judge
ordered that he undergo a psychological evaluation. 2 Dr. Rocksheng Zhong conducted Allen’s
evaluation on August 16, 2017. 3 Dr. Zhong advised the court that Allen was not competent to
stand trial and suggested a stay of approximately 60 days at Whiting Forensic Hospital. 4

Doc. #33 at 10.
Id. at 11.
3
Ibid.
4
Ibid.
1
2

1

Case 3:20-cv-01276-JAM Document 40 Filed 01/17/23 Page 2 of 8

Allen was committed to Whiting in September 2017. 5 While at Whiting, his care was
managed by Dr. Sidaros. 6 The conditions at Whiting were “appalling,” with “poor quality food,”
“dirty dingy surroundings” and “constant acts of violence between the patients.” 7 When Allen
first arrived at Whiting, he requested to take “Depakote medication for his mood issues,” which
was “the only medication that had been effective for him in the past.” 8 Dr. Sidaros, however, told
Allen that he needed to either take both Depakote and an antipsychotic or no medication at all. 9
Allen chose the latter. 10 Allen was also “forced into solitary confinement” where he was “given
forced medications” by Dr. Sidaros “for coughing too loudly” and for calling Dr. Sidaros “by his
first name Rafik.” 11
After two weeks, Allen’s original charges were dismissed. 12 However, Dr. Sidaros
ordered Allen “taken back to Whiting by ambulance” on a physician’s emergency certificate. 13
Soon after Allen returned to Whiting, another inmate punched him “unprovoked” in the ear. 14
Allen was “ordered on unit restrict with constant staff observation,” and not allowed to go into
the yard or do activities with other patients. 15 Allen was also “unable to collect . . . clothing and
other belongings his family had mailed him” while he was on unit restrict. 16
Allen further contends that at his probate court hearing and petition for involuntary
commitment, Dr. Sidaros “shared a number of factual inaccuracies,” which was “reckless and

Id. at 12.
Ibid.
7
Id. at 14.
8
Id. at 15.
9
Ibid.
10
Ibid.
11
Id. at 16.
12
Ibid.
13
Ibid.
14
Ibid.
15
Ibid.
16
Ibid.
5
6

2

Case 3:20-cv-01276-JAM Document 40 Filed 01/17/23 Page 3 of 8

wanton misconduct and negligence.” 17 After Dr. Sidaros had “Allen involuntarily committed to
the hospital,” he forced Allen to take medication even after Allen reported to Dr. Sidaros that it
made him “depressed, anxious, restless, have nightmares and other sleep issues, and severe
sexual side effects.” 18
After about three months at Whiting, Allen was transferred to Dutcher. There, Dr.
Dreisbach continued Dr. Sidaros’s medication regimen and did not discharge Allen to
somewhere “more appropriate.” 19 Allen remained at Dutcher for over four months, after which
he was transferred to a respite house. 20
DISCUSSION
A court may dismiss a complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and for failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). A court
must accept as true all factual matters alleged in a complaint, although a complaint may not
survive unless the facts it recites are enough to state plausible grounds for subject matter
jurisdiction and for relief. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Lapaglia v.
Transamerica Cas. Ins. Co., 155 F. Supp. 3d 153, 155–56 (D. Conn. 2016).
Because Allen is proceeding pro se, the Court must liberally construe his complaint and
interpret it to raise the strongest grounds for relief that its allegations suggest. See Sykes v. Bank
of America, 723 F.3d 399, 403 (2d Cir. 2013). Still, even a pro se complaint may not survive a
motion to dismiss if its factual allegations do not establish at least plausible grounds for a grant
of relief. See Fowlkes v. Ironworkers Local 40, 790 F.3d 378, 387 (2d Cir. 2015).

Id. at 17-18.
Id. at 18.
19
Id. at 19.
20
Id. at 12.
17
18

3

Case 3:20-cv-01276-JAM Document 40 Filed 01/17/23 Page 4 of 8

Allen first filed his complaint in August 2020 against Dr. Sidaros and Dr. Dreisbach
alleging violations of his Fourth Amendment right against unlawful seizure of person and Eighth
Amendment right against cruel and unusual treatment. 21 The defendants moved to dismiss. 22 I
granted the motion. See Allen v. Sidaros, 2022 WL 475183 (D. Conn. 2022). I found that Allen’s
claims based on his court-ordered involuntary commitment and administration of medications
were jurisdictionally barred under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Id. at *4. I also found that
Allen’s allegations against Dr. Sidaros with respect to the physician’s emergency certificate did
not include sufficient facts to show “gross negligence or a clear constitutional violation as
required to overcome a defense of qualified immunity.” Id. at *6. Neither could Allen defeat Dr.
Sidaros’s absolute immunity from a § 1983 claim for money damages on the basis of his alleged
perjury at the probate court proceedings. Ibid.
I also concluded that Allen could not identify any clearly established constitutional right
to be designated at a particular type of mental health facility or to be treated at a facility that does
not also have persons subject to criminal charges. Ibid. Neither did Allen allege any particular
facts showing that either Dr. Sidaros or Dr. Dreisbach should have and failed to discharge him at
an earlier time to support his claim of recklessness and gross negligence. Id. at 7. Finally, I noted
that Allen did not show personal involvement by either Dr. Sidaros or Dr. Dreisbach with respect
to his other deprivations, including his time on unit restrict status or the poor living conditions at
Whiting. Ibid.
I similarly denied Allen’s claim against Dr. Sidaros and Dr. Dreisbach for violating his
right to the free exercise of religion. Allen alleged that he was denied the opportunity to attend
Yom Kippur, Rosh Hashana, and Church services while on unit restrict at Whiting. Id. at *8.
21
22

Doc. #1.
Doc. #15.

4

Case 3:20-cv-01276-JAM Document 40 Filed 01/17/23 Page 5 of 8

While I agreed there is “no doubt that Allen retained his constitutional right to the free exercise
of his religion while he was subject to involuntary commitment,” I found that “Allen does not
allege that either Dr. Sidaros or Dr. Dreisbach” were the ones who “ordered him to be deprived
of” this right. Ibid.
On May 2, 2022, Allen filed an amended complaint. 23 The amended complaint names as
an additional defendant the State of Connecticut. 24 But it is well settled that the Eleventh
Amendment and related principles of state sovereign immunity generally divest the federal
courts of jurisdiction over lawsuits by private citizens against the States, any state government
entities, and any state government officials in their official capacities. See generally Lewis v.
Clarke, 137 S. Ct. 1285, 1290–91 (2017); T.W. v. New York State Bd. of L. Examiners, 996 F.3d
87, 92 (2d Cir. 2021). And “it is beyond dispute that Congress’s enactment of § 1983 did not
abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity from federal court lawsuits.” See Campbell v. City of
Waterbury, 585 F. Supp. 3d 194, 202 (D. Conn. 2022).
Allen’s amended complaint notes that he does not “have much . . . to add factually” and
would like to keep his “original statement of claim largely intact.” 25 His amended complaint
filing is more in the nature of a motion for reconsideration of my initial order dismissing his
original complaint, and he argues against dismissal on several grounds.
First, Allen contends that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine is inapplicable to his case as the
state court merely “improperly ratified” the doctors’ judgments that he should be hospitalized
and so did not issue its own “judgment.” 26 But he does not cite law to contradict the conclusion
in my prior ruling that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine may properly extend to § 1983 claims that

Doc. #33.
Id. at 1.
25
Id. at 2.
26
Id. at 2-3.
23
24

5

Case 3:20-cv-01276-JAM Document 40 Filed 01/17/23 Page 6 of 8

challenge enforcement of an involuntary commitment or forced medication order. See Szabo v.
Paradis, 2018 WL 4158332, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. 2018); Middleton v. United States, 2012 WL
394559, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. 2012); Spencer v. Bellevue Hosp., 2012 WL 1267886, at *4-5
(S.D.N.Y. 2012). The Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars Allen from challenging his involuntary
commitment or the doctors’ decision to require him to take certain medication pursuant to the
order of the probate court.
Allen further argues that the doctor defendants were grossly negligent in designating him
to Whiting, rather than allowing him to stay at less secure facilities such as “hospitals with
psychiatric wards, halfway-houses, and Bridgeport Long-Term mental hospital.” 27 But Allen still
has not alleged facts to show that either Dr. Sidaros or Dr. Dreisbach “had authority to decide on
a different hospital facility.” Allen, 2022 WL 475183, at *6. And while Allen emphasizes the
“criminality” of his fellow committees at Whiting, he does not contest that Whiting is a “mental
hospital . . . for civil patients.” 28 Neither has Allen alleged facts—as distinct from conclusory
allegations—to show that the defendants acted with “very great or excessive negligence” or with
“the want of, or failure to exercise, even slight or scant care or slight diligence” as is necessary to
sustain a claim of gross negligence. Riccio v. Bristol Hosp., Inc., 341 Conn. 772, 784 (2022).
Allen next contends that Dr. Sidaros was the one who ordered his “unjustified solitary
confinement and forced medication.” 29 But he does not overcome the Court’s previously stated
concern that “[e]ven assuming Dr. Sidaros . . . ordered Allen to a solitary confinement room, the
complaint alleges no further facts to suggest how any particular incident was so unwarranted or
disproportionate as to amount to a violation of Allen’s constitutional rights.” Allen, 2022 WL

Id. at 6.
Id. at 9.
29
Id. at 8.
27
28

6

Case 3:20-cv-01276-JAM Document 40 Filed 01/17/23 Page 7 of 8

475183, at *7 n.55. Nor has Allen “clearly alleged that Dr. Sidaros independently compelled him
to be medicated without a court order to do so.” Ibid.
Allen further faults the Court’s previous dismissal of his complaint for not addressing his
inability to collect belongings delivered by his family while he was on unit restrict. 30 But Allen
does not allege that either Dr. Sidaros or Dr. Dreisbach were responsible for his deprivation
while on unit restrict.
Allen explains that with respect to his First Amendment claim, he did ask “multiple
times” to attend religious services while on unit restrict. 31 But Allen still does not specify whom
he asked about the services. Nor, again, does he allege that either Dr. Sidaros or Dr. Dreisbach
were involved in the deprivation of his right to attend such services.
Allen’s amended complaint adds an allegation that “a Meriden state’s attorney contacted
the Hamden Police Department to say he thought there was not probable cause for the arrest
made of plaintiff.” 32 But any claims relating to his false arrest have no bearing against either Dr.
Sidaros or Dr. Dreisbach, because Allen does not contend that either doctor was involved with
his original arrest.
It is clear from Allen’s multiple submissions that he believes he was subject to inhumane
treatment throughout several months of involuntary commitment. I do not doubt that the
experience for Allen was very difficult and humiliating. But what is lacking in his original
complaint and amended complaint are allegations that allow me to conclude that either Dr.
Sidaros or Dr. Dreisbach should be held personally liable for what Allen experienced.

30

Ibid.
Ibid.
32
Id. at 13.
31

7

Case 3:20-cv-01276-JAM Document 40 Filed 01/17/23 Page 8 of 8

CONCLUSION
The additional allegations in the amended complaint do not overcome this Court’s
previously stated grounds for dismissal. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the defendants’
renewed motion to dismiss (Doc. #35), and the Court dismisses Allen’s claims with prejudice in
light of the fact that Allen still has not alleged plausible grounds for relief despite having been
afforded the opportunity to file an amended complaint.
It is so ordered.
Dated at New Haven this 17th day of January 2023.
/s/ Jeffrey Alker Meyer
Jeffrey Alker Meyer
United States District Judge

8