Andrew Cook v. Richard Williams, et al.

Summary

This Initial Review Order addresses a pro se prisoner’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims concerning alleged deliberate indifference to medical and dental needs and denial of a single cell. The court dismisses or severs claims involving defendants and events at different correctional facilities, dismisses claims against UConn Medical and an unidentified scheduler, and permits certain medical-indifference claims against Cheshire-related defendants to proceed.

Holdings

1. Claims involving different defendants, facilities, time periods, factual predicates, witnesses, and proofs were improperly joined under Rule 20(a)(2) and were subject to severance under Rule 21.
2. UConn Medical, characterized as a state agency or entity, was not a person subject to suit under § 1983, so Cook's claims against it were dismissed with prejudice to repleading in this action.
3. A plaintiff seeking damages under § 1983 must allege facts showing each defendant's personal involvement in the constitutional violation; receipt or forwarding of a communication, without more, is insufficient.
4. Cook plausibly alleged Fourteenth and/or Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claims against Dr. Maletz concerning his failed cervical fusion and related pain, and against Dr. Williams concerning his breathing difficulties while in quarantine in February 2024.
5. Official-capacity claims for monetary damages against state employees were barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Official-capacity claims for injunctive or declaratory relief against Cheshire officials were moot after Cook's transfer, except that Cook could proceed against Dr. Maletz in his official capacity based on allegations of ongoing treatment at multiple DOC facilities.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Cook's claims against defendants associated with different facilities and unrelated medical, dental, and housing incidents were properly joined under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20.
2. Whether Cook stated plausible Fourteenth or Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claims based on breathing difficulties and a failed cervical fusion with related pain.
3. Whether Cook adequately alleged the personal involvement of supervisory officials and a scheduler in the claimed constitutional violations.
4. Whether UConn Medical was subject to suit under § 1983.
5. Whether official-capacity claims for damages were barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity and whether official-capacity claims for injunctive relief were moot after Cook's transfer.

Disposition

other