United States District Court, W.D. New York
DECISION AND ORDER
ELIZABETH A. WOLFORD United States District Judge.
Oscar Mora ("Plaintiff), pro se and
incarcerated at Attica Correctional Facility
("Attica"), brings this action against three Attica
employees-W. Hughes ("Hughes"), Deputy of Security;
J. Rao ("Dr. Rao"), a doctor; and A. Haynes
("Haynes"), a nurse (collectively,
"Defendants")-pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
alleging that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his
serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
(Dkt. 1). Dr. Rao moves to dismiss the complaint against him
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. (Dkt. 15-1). For the reasons discussed below, the
Court denies Dr. Rao's motion.
following facts are drawn from Plaintiffs complaint. (Dkt.
has been incarcerated at Attica from 2008 until the present,
including all times relevant to this action. (Id. at
¶ 4). He suffers from "Brittle Type 1"
Diabetes, which is "the most severe category of Type 1
Diabetes." (Id. at ¶ 17). Those who suffer
from Brittle Type 1 Diabetes "require constant readings
of their blood sugar so as to not go into shock or even
die." (Id.). Additionally, "Type 1
Diabetics can experience hypoglycemia (low blood sugar) or
hyperglycemia (high blood sugar), " either of which
"can cause plaintiff to have seizures, coma, or even
death." (Id. at ¶ 18).
28, 2011, after several "severe" episodes of
hypoglycemia, Plaintiff met with Dr. Rao to discuss whether
Plaintiff required a glucometer in his cell. (Id. at
¶ 20). Dr. Rao agreed that Plaintiff needed a glucometer
but claimed "it [would] likely be denied by [the]
April 5, 2012, Plaintiff was brought to the emergency room in
a wheelchair because of an episode of low blood sugar.
(Id. at ¶ 19).
26, 2012, Plaintiff met with Dr. Rao for a second time
regarding Plaintiffs need for a glucometer in his cell.
(Id. at ¶20). Dr. Rao agreed that Plaintiff
needed the device but advised him to write to Hughes.
(Id.). Plaintiff then wrote a letter to Hughes,
requesting approval for the glucometer. (Id.).
Hughes denied Plaintiffs request, citing security concerns.
October 10, 2012, Plaintiff sent Hughes another written
request for a glucometer, contending that "the Federal
Bureau of Prisons allows certain inmates that ha[ve] diabetes
to have glucose meters and lancets to allow these prisoners
to better maintain their blood sugar levels."
(Id. at 21). Two days later, Hughes denied this
2012 and 2013, Plaintiff experienced several episodes of
hypoglycemia, abnormal blood sugar, and related side effects.
(See Id. at ¶¶ 22-28). For example, on
November 29, 2012, he had a hypoglycemic episode and was
found unconscious in his cell. (Id. at ¶ 22).
On July 21, 2013, he suffered from headaches and vomiting and
was taken to the emergency room, where he discovered that
"his blood sugar was at a dangerous level of 403."
(Id. at ¶ 23). On December 29, 2013, Plaintiff
had a hyperglycemic episode, but medical staff failed to
respond; in particular, "Haynes was on duty but failed
to assess and administer insulin for [P]laintiff, stating to
[an] officer on duty, 'I'm not going up there unless
he's having a reaction.'" (Id. at
filed two grievances concerning his medical care. The first
was filed on November 18, 2013, and the second was filed on
January 9, 2014, against Haynes for allegedly inadequate
medical care. (Id. at ¶¶ 10, 29). The
Superintendent denied each grievance. (Id. at ¶
11). Plaintiffs subsequent appeals of those denials were also
denied. (Id. at¶¶ 12-13).
on the foregoing, Plaintiff claims that Defendants were
deliberately indifferent to Plaintiffs serious medical needs,
in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Id. at
¶¶ 32-34). Plaintiff claims that Dr. Rao's
failure to advocate in favor of allowing Plaintiff to have a
glucometer constituted deliberate indifference to Plaintiffs
serious medical needs. (Id. at ¶ 33, 7).
Plaintiff seeks an ...