Wang v. Delphin-Rittmon

664 F.Supp.3d 205

Lishan WANG, Plaintiff, v. Miriam DELPHIN-RITTMON et al., Defendants.

No. 3:17-cv-586 (JAM)

United States District Court, D. Connecticut

Signed March 24, 2023

Lishan Wang, Cheshire, CT, Pro Se.

Mary Kathryn Lenehan, Jacqueline S. Hoell, Patrick B. Kwanashie, Office of the Attorney General, Hartford, CT, for Defendant Victoria Dreisbach.

Mary Kathryn Lenehan, Office of the Attorney General, Hartford, CT, for Defendants Diana Kurlyandchik, Misty Delciampo, Clara Mejias, Judy Hall, Heather Madison.

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS

Jeffrey Alker Meyer, United States District Judge

Plaintiff Lishan Wang alleges that while he was a pretrial detainee at Whiting Forensic Hospital he was forcibly injected with Benadryl and put into four-point restraints for upwards of ten hours in violation of his constitutional rights. The Court has previously issued an initial review order allowing his claims to proceed against two doctor defendants (Dr. Diana Kurlyandchik, and Dr. Victoria Dreisbach) as well as four nurse defendants (Clara Mejias, Judy Hall, Heather Madison, Misty Delciampo).

The defendants have now moved to dismiss, arguing that the suit is barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, that they are entitled to quasi-judicial immunity, and that they are entitled to qualified immunity. I will deny their motion.

BACKGROUND

As an initial matter, I take judicial notice of state court rulings and orders that set forth the background facts leading up to the events at issue on February 22, 2017 that are the focus of Wang's complaint against the defendants.¹ Wang was charged with murder and other crimes in Connecticut state court in 2010. Following protracted pre-trial proceedings, a state court found Wang not competent to stand trial. The state court then conducted several hearings from September to November 2015 for the purpose of determining whether Wang should be subject to involuntary medical treatment to restore his competency.

Connecticut law allows a state court to enter an order for the involuntary administration of antipsychotic drugs that may restore a criminal defendant to competency for trial. See Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-56d. In particular, the law provides that "the court may order the involuntary medication of the defendant if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that: (A) To a reasonable degree of medical certainty, involuntary medication of the defendant will render the defendant competent to stand trial, (B) an adjudication of guilt or innocence cannot be had using less intrusive means, (C) the proposed treatment plan is narrowly tailored to minimize intrusion on the defendant's liberty and privacy interests, (D) the proposed drug regimen will not cause an unnecessary risk to the defendant's health, and (E) the seriousness of the alleged crime is such that the criminal law enforcement interest of the state in fairly and accurately determining the defendant's guilt or innocence overrides the defendant's interest in self-determination." § 54-56d(k)(2).

On January 21, 2016, the state trial court ruled that the State's proposed treatment plan met all these statutory requirements and also satisfied the similar constitutional due process requirements as set forth in Sell v. United States, 539 U.S. 166, 123 S.Ct. 2174, 156 L.Ed.2d 197 (2003).² Wang appealed this ruling, and the Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed the state court order on September 13, 2016. See State v. Wang, 323 Conn. 115, 145 A.3d 906 (2016).³

The state court order refers to "the two specific medications recommended for the treatment of the defendant," and the Connecticut Supreme Court's ruling makes clear that these two medications were Olanzapine and Ziprasidone as testified to and recommended by the State's psychiatrist—Dr. Mark Cotterell—and with the unanimous support of Wang's treatment team.⁴ There is nothing in the state court order or the Connecticut Supreme Court's ruling that purports to authorize the involuntary administration of any medication other than Olanzapine and Ziprasidone or that describes the manner in which the State could effectuate its authority to involuntarily administer Olanzapine and Ziprasidone.

That brings us to the events of February 22, 2017. According to the complaint, Wang was called on that day around 2:30pm to Building Unit 2 at the Whiting Forensic Institute to receive his court-ordered medication.⁵ When Wang emerged from his dorm, he told the male employees assembled in the hallway that "You all know I do not need medication."⁶ When he was asked to go to the treatment room, Wang refused, telling the officers "You need to carry me over there."⁷ At that point, some of the assembled employees grabbed Wang's "arms, legs, and other parts of his body."⁸ In response Wang "stiffed his body" but at no point "pushed, kicked, grabbed, scratched, or hit anyone."⁹

The employees carried Wang into the restraint room and strapped him to a bed in a four-point restraint.¹⁰ At around 2:45pm, one of the defendant nurses—Heather Madison—injected Wang with his first dose of what Wang refers to as Zyprexa (the brand name for Olanzapine).¹¹ During the injection, Wang twisted his hips to try and avoid the needle, and male employees grabbed his legs, thighs, and hips to stabilize him for injection.¹²

At 4:00pm one of the defendant doctors—Dr. Diana Kurlyandchik—appeared.¹³ He told her: " 'I don't need med.' 'You need medication.' 'I'm going to sue you.' 'I've Chinese government behind me.' 'You crazy.' etc' "¹⁴ Dr. Kurlyandchik returned at 4:30pm and spoke with Wang again. During one of her conversations with him, she told him that, if he said "I will not harm anyone," then she would terminate his four-point restraint.¹⁵ Wang was silent because he had "never wanted to harm anyone physically" and he felt that the request "was a trap because it would indicate that he had wanted to harm others."¹⁶

Dr. Kurlyandchik ordered continuous four-point restraint for Wang after 4:30pm.¹⁷ One of the nurse defendants—Misty Delciampo—falsely accused Wang of being "violent and threatening," and she recommended continued use of four-point restraints.¹⁸

The second-shift psychiatrist was another doctor defendant—Dr. Victoria Dreisbach.¹⁹ She prescribed for Wang two doses of Benadryl—a medication that was not the subject of the state court's order of involuntary medication.²⁰ The first dose of Benadryl was injected by defendant nurse Clara Mejias, and the second dose by defendant nurse Judy Hall.²¹ Both doses were administered to Wang against his will while he was in four-point restraints and despite the fact that Dr. Dreisbach and nurses Mejias and Hall knew that there was no court order to allow them to forcibly administer Benadryl.²²

The complaint does not say when the first dose of Benadryl was administered but states that the second dose was administered about eight hours after he had first been placed in four-point restraints (somewhere between 2:30pm to 2:45pm) and within a short period of time from the first Benadryl dose.²³ At 9:10pm Wang was also injected with a second dose of Zyprexa (Olanzapine) while still in four-point restraints.²⁴

When Wang asked nurse Mejias why he was being given Benadryl for the first dose, she told him that Dr. Dreisbach had ordered it. When Wang sought clarification from nurse Hall for the second dose, she explained that Dr. Dreisbach had prescribed Benadryl "for the side effects."²⁵ But, according to Wang, he did not have any side effects from the Zyprexa (Olanzapine).²⁶

Finally around midnight, after Wang had been in four-point restraints for about ten hours, he was released to go to the bathroom.²⁷ When Wang finished using the bathroom, he "passed out, lost his consciousness, and . . . collapsed to the floor in the bathroom."²⁸ As he fell, Wang hit his nose on the urinal, fracturing his nasal bone, and he was taken to an outside medical hospital for treatment.²⁹ According to Wang, he fell because of the dizzying side effects of the Benadryl.³⁰

Wang's complaint describes how being in four-point restraint was "extremely uncomfortable, painful, agonizing, dreary, stressful, traumatic, [and] injurious both mentally and physically."³¹ "He twisted or bended his body because of the pain and distress, but being 4-point restrained he could NOT change his body position."³² "The pain and agony became more and more intolerable as the hour[s] of 4-point restraint extended."³³

Wang alleges that he "had NEVER been violent physically or threatened to harm anyone physically."³⁴ He further alleges that "[t]here was no sign or symptom which could raise a concern about the risk of his posing harm to himself or others."³⁵

According to Wang, most of the defendants wrote lies in their medical reports claiming that he had acted threateningly and violently. Dr. Kurlyandchik "fabricated that she had attempted to talk to Mr. Wang (who refused) before the 4-point restraint, and had further fabricated that Mr. Wang had threatened to do physical harms to others."³⁶ Similarly, Dr. Dreisbach "lied against Mr. Wang by falsely alleg[ing] that Mr. Wang was violent on 2/22/2017 and he was trying to break out under 4-point restraint."³⁷ Three of the four nurse defendants—Delciampo, Mejias, and Madison—lied in the medical records by claiming that he acted violently.³⁸ Wang does not claim that the fourth nurse defendant—Hall—made false entries in her records or falsely accused him of being threatening or violent.³⁹

About two weeks later, Wang met with Dr. Cotterell and members of his treatment team on March 8, 2017. At that meeting, Dr. Cotterell confirmed that without a court order no doctor or nurse could administer any non-court-approved medicine to Wang.⁴⁰

Wang filed this lawsuit in April 2017.⁴¹ After a series of amended complaints, he filed the operative complaint on September 14, 2021.⁴² In its initial review order of the operative complaint, the Court allowed two of Wang's Fourteenth Amendment claims to proceed:...