The opinion of the court was delivered by: ARTHUR SPATT, District Judge
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER
The pro se plaintiff Louis Edward Davis aka Michael Davis
("Davis" or the "plaintiff" commenced this action against the
Nassau County Sheriff Edward Reilly ("Reilly") and Dr. James Neal
("Dr. Neal"), the Medical Director of the Nassau County
Correctional Center (the "NCCC"), for violation of
42 U.S.C. § 1983. Presently before the Court is a motion by Reilly to dismiss
the complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure for failure to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted.
All facts are taken from the complaint unless otherwise stated.
On April 18, 2003, while incarcerated at the NCCC, the plaintiff
slipped on a wet cement floor outside of the shower area and was
injured. The plaintiff claims that he was made to lie in "dirty
shower water" for approximately thirty minutes until an ambulance
arrived to escort him to the Nassau University Medical Center
(the "Medical Center"). At the Medical Center, the plaintiff
received several X-rays and a CAT scan. The treating doctor
informed the plaintiff that he had sprained his neck and back.
The doctor then gave the plaintiff a shot to "loosen" his stiff
neck and back. Approximately four hours later, the plaintiff was
returned to the NCCC.
The following day, the plaintiff complained of pains in his
back and neck area when he attempted to walk around.
Additionally, he claims he suffered "needle like" pains in his
left testicle and sustained lacerations on the rear of his head.
A doctor saw the plaintiff and informed him that his pains were
normal given his fall on the previous day. The plaintiff was also
given pain medication three times per day.
At some point between April, 2003 and September, 2003, the
plaintiff was transferred from the NCCC to Downstate Correctional
Facility. In a letter dated September 10, 2003, the plaintiff
informed the Court that he was transferred to the Green Haven
Correctional Facility in Stormville, New York.
On August 5, 2003, the plaintiff commenced this action against
Reilly and Dr. Neal. The plaintiff claims that Reilly violated
Section 1983 by failing to place shower mats and tiles in the
shower area which the plaintiff claims he claims would have
prevented his slip and fall from occurring. The plaintiff also
alleges that Dr. Neal violated Section 1983 and the Eighth
Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment by
failing to supervise and adequately train his medical staff to
respond to the plaintiff's medical needs and by acting with a
deliberate indifference to those needs.
Presently before the Court is a motion by Reilly pursuant to
Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss
the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can
Reilly asserts, among other things, that the claims against him
should be dismissed, because (1) the plaintiff's claims are
barred by the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PLRA"); (2)
the plaintiff's complaint fails to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted; and (3) the plaintiff has failed to comply
with New York law.
In reviewing a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), the
Court should dismiss the complaint only if it appears beyond
doubt that the facts alleged in the complaint would not entitle
the plaintiff to relief. King v. Simpson, 189 F.3d 284, 287 (2d
Cir. 1999); see also Bernheim v. Litt, 79 F.3d 318, 321 (2d
Cir. 1996). The Court must accept all of the allegations in the
complaint as true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of
the plaintiff. See Koppel v. 4987 Corp., 167 F.3d 125, 128 (2d
Cir. 1999); Jaghory v. N.Y. State Dep't of Educ.,
131 F.3d 326, 329 (2d Cir. 1997). Additionally, the issue before the Court
is not whether the plaintiff's claim will ultimately prevail, but
whether the plaintiff is entitled to offer evidence in support of
the claims. Villager Pond, Inc. v. Town of Darien, 56 F.3d 375,
378 (2d Cir. 1995).
Furthermore, the Court must construe a pro se plaintiff's
complaint liberally. See Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 10,
66 L.Ed.2d 163, 101 S.Ct. 173 (1980); Simmons v. Abruzzo,
49 F.3d 83, 87 (2d Cir. 1995) (citing Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519,
520, 30 L.Ed.2d 652, 92 S.Ct. 594 (1972)). Here, the plaintiff
filed an "Affirmation in Response to Motion to Dismiss" (the
"Affirmation") in which additional facts are alleged. Thus, when
reviewing factual allegations, the Court may examine materials
outside of the four corners of the pro se plaintiff's
complaint. See e.g., Supinski v. Merrill Lynch & Co., No. 00
Civ. 7363, 2001 WL 930779, at *1 n. 2 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 13, 2001)
("the policy reasons favoring liberal construction of pro se
pleadings warrant the ...