United States District Court, E.D. New York
Plaintiff: Barry Vallen, pro se
Defendants: Lori L. Pack, Esq.
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
pending before the Court in this section 1983 action is a
motion filed by Dr. Roger Beau Plan (“Dr. Plan”),
Dr. Bilal Khan (“Dr. Khan”), and Dr. Leoncia
Carlotta (“Dr. Carlotta” and collectively
“Defendants”) to dismiss for failure to state a
claim (Docket Entry 20). For the following reasons,
Defendants' motion is GRANTED.
Court assumes familiarity with the factual and procedural
background of this case, which is set forth in its Memorandum
and Order dated February 4, 2016. See Vallen v.
Plan, No. 15-CV-0703, 2016 WL 482026 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 4,
Plaintiff is a patient at Pilgrim Psychiatric Center
(“Pilgrim”) and commenced this action on February
9, 2015. (Compl., Docket Entry 1.) He alleged that Defendants
were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs in
connection with a severe back injury. (Compl. ¶ IV.)
Specifically, he alleged that Defendants, after determining
that he was addicted to certain pain medications, decided to
stop prescribing those medications. (Compl. ¶ IV.) He
further maintained that he would be in
“unbearable” pain without the pain medications.
(Compl. ¶ IV.) He sought $75, 000 from Dr. Plan, $25,
000 from Dr. Khan, and $25, 000 from Dr. Carlotta to
compensate him for the alleged violations of his Eighth
Amendment rights. (Compl. ¶ V.) Additionally, he sought
injunctive relief directing Defendants “to end the
lowering of [his] medications” and to allow him to see
“an outside psychiatrist-psychologist[, ] medical
doctor[, ] and social worker trained in treated
trauma.” (Compl. ¶ V.) On August 11, 2015,
Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint for failure to
state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
(Docket Entry 10.)
February 4, 2016, this Court granted Defendant's motion
in part. Vallen, 2016 WL 482026, at *4. The Court
held that Plaintiff's claims for monetary damages against
Defendants in their official capacities were barred by
sovereign immunity and dismissed those claims. Id.
at *3. The Court further held that Plaintiff's Complaint
failed to state a claim and dismissed the Complaint with
leave to amend. Id. at *4. While Plaintiff may have
disagreed with the course of treatment, the Court found that
the allegations were insufficient to state a deliberate
indifference claim. See id. at *4.
April 22, 2016, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint.
Plaintiff makes similar allegations in his Amended Complaint,
including that: (1) Defendants were “deliberately
indifferent to Plaintiff['s] [p]sychiatric and medical
need[s];” (2) Plaintiff suffers from a deteriorating
“hip condition” which is “well known to
Defendants;” (3) Plaintiff “never asked for
narcotics . [and] would rather have had bed rest;” (4)
Defendants and nurses teased Plaintiff; (5) “Due to the
Staff[']s deliberate infliction and wanton and vicious
abuse of [Plaintiff] . . . Plaintiff even with the
medications could not leave a psychological and physical
state of pain;” and (6) “Defendants were
obviously together in a sufficiently culpable state of mind,
not being kind or even trying to be kind to
Plaintiff.” (Am. Compl. at 1-3) (emphasis in original.)
Plaintiff contends that he has “silently suffered with
vicious and wanton infliction [of pain]” and requests
that the Court order an evaluation by an outside doctor as
soon as possible. (Am. Compl. at 4.) Finally, he states that
he intends to proceed against Defendants in their individual
capacities in light of the Court's prior ruling. (Am.
Compl. at 5.) The Court construes the Amended Complaint as
seeking unspecified monetary damages against Defendants and
an order directing that Defendants allow him to be examined
by an outside doctor.
move to dismiss the Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Specifically, they argue
that Plaintiff's allegations fail to state a claim for
deliberate indifference to his medical needs. (Defs.'
Br., Docket Entry 20-2, at 2-3.) Alternatively, they argue
that the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.
(Defs.' Br. at 3-6.) Defendants also request an order
precluding Plaintiff from filing additional lawsuits against
Pilgrim, or members of its staff, without permission of this
Court. (Defs.' Br. at 6-7.)
12(b)(6) provides that dismissal is appropriate if the
complaint fails “to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). To survive a motion
to dismiss, a complaint must plead “enough facts to
state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127
S.Ct. 1955, 1974 (2007). A claim is plausible “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, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949, 173
L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). Although the Court must accept all
allegations in the Amended Complaint as true, this tenet is
“inapplicable to legal conclusions.” Id.
Thus, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause
of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not