Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Williams v. Koenigsmann

United States District Court, S.D. New York

July 16, 2015

Wesley Williams, Plaintiff,
v.
Carl J. Koenigsmann, Regional Medical Director of Green have Correctional Facility, Facility Health Services Director of Green Haven Correctional Facility, Doctor Acrish, Sued in their Individual Capacities, Defendants.

OPINION & ORDER

NELSON S. ROMN, District Judge.

Plaintiff Wesley Williams ("Plaintiff') brings this action against Carl J. Koenigsmann, Frederick Bernstein, Albert Acrish, and Barbara Griffith (collectively, "Defendants") for violations of law. Defendants move to dismiss. For the following reasons, the motion is DENIED.

BACKGROUND[1]

On April 7, 2014, Pro se Plaintiff filed this action against Defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged violations of his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. (See Compl., ECF No. 2.)

Plaintiff alleges that he first began complaining of breast pain and put in for sick call in December 2006 while he was incarcerated at Sing Sing Correctional Facility. (Compl. at 4.) At an unspecified date, Plaintiff was transferred to Great Meadow Correctional Facility where he continued to suffer breast pain, but allegedly received no treatment. (Compl. at 4.)

Plaintiff was referred to an endocrinologist[2] by Nurse Practitioner Acrish.[3] (Compl. at 4.) The endocrinologist diagnosed Plaintiff with gynecomastia and suggested a surgical consult for a mastectomy. (Compl. at 4.)

Over the next four years Acrish allegedly repeatedly did not follow up with the endocrinologist's prescribed course of treatment despite Plaintiff's repeated complaints of pain. (Compl. at 4; Pl. Mem. at 4, ECF No. 24.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Bernstein and Griffith directed Acrish not to arrange the surgery purportedly because Defendants had designated the surgery as "cosmetic" based on a policy. (Compl. at 4; Pl. Mem. at 4.) Plaintiff alleges that this policy was created by Koenigsmann. (Pl. Mem. at 4.) Plaintiff claims that this decision contradicted the endocrinologist's opinion that Plaintiff's gynecomastia caused him extreme pain and that the pain would not resolve on its own. (Compl. at 4.)

Plaintiff alleges that he has not received any medication for pain or any treatment for gynecomastia. (Id.) Plaintiff concedes that he has received hormone therapy, but avers that this treatment was for a separate condition known as hypogonadism. (Pl. Mem. at 6.) Plaintiff alleges that his condition persists because Defendants have not given Plaintiff the surgery that he needs. (Pl. Mem. at 7.)

STANDARD ON A MOTION 12(b)(6)

On a motion to dismiss for "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, " dismissal is proper unless the complaint "contain[s] sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). When there are well-pleaded factual allegations in the complaint, "a court should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. A claim is facially plausible when the factual content pleaded allows a court "to draw a reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. at 678. Ultimately, determining whether a complaint states a facially plausible claim upon which relief may be granted must be "a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense." Id. at 679.

Pro se pleadings are held to "less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). They are construed "liberally" and interpreted "to raise the strongest arguments that they suggest." Pabon v. Wright, 459 F.3d 241, 248 (2d Cir. 2006) (quoting Burgos v. Hopkins, 14 F.3d 787, 790 (2d Cir. 1994)). Additionally, this Court "may consider factual allegations made by a pro se plaintiff in opposition papers and other additional materials." Baskerville v. Blot, 224 F.Supp.2d 723 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). However, pro se status "does not exempt a party from compliance with relevant rules of procedural and substantive law." Boddie v. N.Y. State Div. of Parole, 285 F.Supp.2d 421, 426 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (quoting Traguth v. Zuch, 710 F.2d 90, 95 (2d Cir. 1983)).

DISCUSSION

I. Section 1983 Claim

Plaintiff purports to bring claims under 42 U.S.C. § ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.