From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Vidal v. Warden

Connecticut Superior Court Judicial District of Tolland at Rockville
Oct 16, 2007
2007 Ct. Sup. 17100 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2007)

Opinion

No. CV 07-4001833

October 16, 2007


Memorandum of Decision


After considering the testimony and reviewing the exhibits, the court concludes that the respondent warden has not engaged in "`deliberate indifference' to [the] petitioner's medical needs." Hunnicut v. Commissioner of Correction, 67 Conn.App. 65, 69, 787 A.2d 22 (2001). While a solution to the petitioner's constipation has been elusive, the respondent has not ignored the problem. Rather, the respondent has given the petitioner's medical needs ample attention and has expressed a willingness to continue to adjust the petitioner's medication in hopes of improving the petitioner's condition. Accordingly, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is denied.

It is so ordered.


Summaries of

Vidal v. Warden

Connecticut Superior Court Judicial District of Tolland at Rockville
Oct 16, 2007
2007 Ct. Sup. 17100 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2007)
Case details for

Vidal v. Warden

Case Details

Full title:DANIEL VIDAL v. WARDEN

Court:Connecticut Superior Court Judicial District of Tolland at Rockville

Date published: Oct 16, 2007

Citations

2007 Ct. Sup. 17100 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2007)