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.

Wall v. Lubelczyk

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts

September 30, 2016

GREGORY A. WALL, Plaintiff,
v.
REBECCA LUBELCZYK, THOMAS GROBLEWSKI, ADRIANNA CARRILLO, GERI RIENDEAU, SHAWNA NASUTI, KAREN BERGERON, LAWRENCE WEINER, and HAROLD CLARKE, Defendants.

          Gregory Wall, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

          Dr. Rebecca Lubelczyk, Defendant, represented by Jacob J. Struck, Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP & James A. Bello, Morrison, Mahoney LLP.

          Dr. Thomas Groblewski, Defendant, represented by Jacob J. Struck, Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP & James A. Bello, Morrison, Mahoney LLP.

          MD Adrianna Carrillo,, Defendant, represented by John D. Cassidy, Ficksman & Conley LLP.

          RN, Geri Riendeau, Defendant, represented by Jacob J. Struck, Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP & James A. Bello, Morrison, Mahoney LLP.

          RN, Shawna Nasuti, Defendant, represented by Jessica A. King, Koufman & Frederick, LLP.

          OPINION AND ORDER

          GEORGE A. O'TOOLE, Jr., District Judge.

         Acting pro se, the plaintiff, Gregory A. Wall, an inmate in the custody of the Massachusetts Department of Corrections, asserts a number of federal and state claims against various prison officials and medical staff for their alleged mistreatment of an injury to his right shoulder. He has served the complaint on or obtained waivers of service from defendants Dr. Rebecca Lubelczyk, Dr. Thomas Groblewski, Dr. Adrianna Carrillo, Geri Riendeau, and Shawna Nasuti. Lubelczyk, Groblewski, and Riendeau have filed answers to the complaint. Carrillo and Nasuti have moved to dismiss the claims against them.

         The plaintiff has not filed proof of service on defendants Karen Bergeron, Lawrence Weiner, or Harold Clarke. Pursuant to this Court's August 2, 2016 Order (dkt. no. 52), those defendants are now dismissed for lack of service.

         As noted in the August 2 Order, as a matter of case management, the Court will address the plaintiff's federal constitutional and statutory claims first. The pending motions to dismiss those federal claims are addressed herein.

         Because the defendants' motions challenge the sufficiency of the claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the Court takes as true all well-pleaded factual allegations. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). "To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Id . (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A complaint "stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility" where it "pleads facts that are merely consistent with' a defendant's liability." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 546). "Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice" to adequately plead a claim for relief. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).

         As an initial matter, the complaint does not contain sufficient factual allegations to support the plaintiff's purported constitutional claims for violation of his equal protection or due process rights, labelled as Count II. These allegations appear to be mere boilerplate. The plaintiff's claims revolve around his allegedly inadequate medical care, which possibly brings them within the province of the Eighth Amendment (applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment). Tacking on other independent constitutional claims is unnecessary. See United States v. Lanier, 520 U.S. 259, 272 n.7 (1997) ("[I]f a constitutional claim is covered by a specific constitutional provision, such as the... Eighth Amendment, the claim must be analyzed under the standard appropriate to that specific provision, not under the rubric of substantive due process."). The plaintiff's claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1985 similarly fail because there is no allegation of classbased discrimination. See Perez-Sánchez v. Pub. Bldg. Auth., 531 F.3d 104, 107 (1st Cir. 2008). Those claims are dismissed.[1]

         I. Carrillo's Motion to Dismiss (dkt. no. 22)

         According to the complaint, the plaintiff's shoulder was first injured in 2008. He was examined by medical professionals and was eventually started on a physical therapy regimen. By late 2011, the physical therapist concluded that the therapy had failed and referred the plaintiff to an orthopedic specialist, Dr. Carrillo. In January 2012, ...


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.