Ramsey Quijano v. Warden, State Prison (2013)

THE COURT:  Under Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, a 1976 case (as read), in order to establish an Eighth Amendment claim arising out of inadequate medical care, a prisoner must prove deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs, and a prison official will be found to have violated the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution if by virtue of their deliberate indifference to an inmate's serious medical needs, he refuses to provide care or treatment to that inmate.

The Connecticut Supreme Court has held under Farady v. Commissioner of Correction, 288 Conn. 326 (2008) (as read), the standard of deliberate indifference includes both subjective and objective components.   First the alleged deprivation must be in objective terms sufficiently serious;  second, the government official must act with a sufficiently culpable state of mind.   The official must both be aware of facts from which the indifference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists and he must also draw the inference.

Thus, an official's failure to alleviate a significant risk that he should have perceived but did not, does not violate the Eighth Amendment.   Accordingly, to establish a claim of deliberate indifference in violation of the Eighth Amendment, the prisoner must prove that the official's actions constituted more than ordinary lack of due care for the prisoner's interest or safety.

The Court has heard testimony today from witnesses, including the petitioner and the state's witnesses, Captain Manley, who is a corrections officer, and Dr. Wright, who is a physician for DOC.

The Court understands the petitioner's concerns regarding his health and his life as he put it, but he has failed to meet his burden of proving that the respondent is deliberately indifferent to his medical condition.

According to the petitioner's own exhibit, Exhibit One, which is a pamphlet from Boston Scientific, the manufacturer of petitioner's pacemaker, it is safe for a person with a device to walk through security gates but cautions against use of a strong magnet found in security wands when placed over the device.

The petitioner offers several documents from medical providers that state that the petitioner should not go through metal detectors but should be wanded instead.   This order, as he calls it, goes directly against the manufacturer's warnings, and the petitioner has failed to provide any evidence that it is unsafe for him to walk through medical detectors other than the exhibits from the doctors, which doesn't prove anything.   It is clear to the Court based on Dr. Wright's testimony that the petitioner was misinformed regarding metal detectors and DOC's decision to have him walk through metal detectors is safer for the petitioner and furthers DOC's policy for general welfare and safety of the facility.

As to the disciplinary report that he received on August 25th due to his refusal to walk through the metal detector, that has been expunged;  and therefore, he has suffered no adverse consequences as a result.

The Court finds no indifference, deliberate or otherwise, regarding the petitioner's medical condition on the part of the respondent.

For the foregoing reasons, the petition is denied and judgment for the respondent is entered.

For the record, the petitioner will receive his appeal rights.   The petitioner is being handed his appeal rights by the marshal.

Hunchu Kwak, Judge

Kwak, Hunchu, J.