The opinion of the court was delivered by: John G. Koeltl, District Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
The plaintiff, Gerson Benavides, sued the New York City Department of Correction (the "DOC") and two of its personnel, Corrections Officer Grier and Captain Marshall (collectively, the "individual defendants"), under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deliberate indifference to the plaintiff's serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth or Fourteenth Amendment. After the plaintiff amended his complaint twice, the defendants moved to dismiss it pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted.
In deciding a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), the allegations in the complaint are accepted as true, and all reasonable inferences must be drawn in the plaintiff's favor. McCarthy v. Dun & Bradstreet Corp., 482 F.3d 184, 191 (2d Cir. 2007). The Court's function on a motion to dismiss is "not to weigh the evidence that might be presented at a trial but merely to determine whether the complaint itself is legally sufficient." Goldman v. Belden, 754 F.2d 1059, 1067 (2d Cir. 1985). The Court should not dismiss the complaint if the plaintiff has stated "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). While the Court should construe the factual allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, "the tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in the complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions." Id.
When faced with a pro se complaint, the Court must "construe [the] complaint liberally and interpret it to raise the strongest arguments that it suggests." Chavis v. Chappius, 618 F.3d 162, 170 (2d Cir. 2010) (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted). "Even in a pro se case, however, . . . threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, although the Court is "obligated to draw the most favorable inferences" that the complaint supports, it "cannot invent factual allegations that [the plaintiff] has not pled." Id.
The following allegations are assumed to be true for the purposes of this motion.
As of August 12, 2009,*fn1 the plaintiff was incarcerated at the Anna M. Kross Center ("AMKC") at Rikers Island. (Second Am. Compl. ("SAC") 3.) At approximately 5:30 a.m. that morning, while getting breakfast in the unit day room, another inmate "grabbed [him] and threw [him] to the floor." (Id.) The plaintiff injured his right knee and "laid on the floor in pain for fifteen minutes." (Id.) A corrections officer "did not assist for several minutes while [the plaintiff] laid in pain on the floor." (Id.) "[T]he captain was called to the area and was trying to say [the plaintiff] slipped maybe on some jelly." (Id.)
From these injuries, the plaintiff "has CDL ligaments from [his] right knee broke[n], and back pain." (Id.) The plaintiff states that it took approximately three months to get an MRI and five months to get surgery performed on his right knee. (Id.)
This Order will treat the individual defendants and the DOC in turn.
To plead an Eighth or Fourteenth Amendment*fn2 violation arising out of inadequate medical ...