Peterkin v. Walker, 95-2355
| Decision Date | 01 April 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. 95-2355,95-2355 |
| Citation | 101 F.3d 681 |
| Parties | NOTICE: THIS SUMMARY ORDER MAY NOT BE CITED AS PRECEDENTIAL AUTHORITY, BUT MAY BE CALLED TO THE ATTENTION OF THE COURT IN A SUBSEQUENT STAGE OF THIS CASE, IN A RELATED CASE, OR IN ANY CASE FOR PURPOSES OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL OR RES JUDICATA. SEE SECOND CIRCUIT RULE 0.23. Anthony James PETERKIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. T. Urling WALKER, City of Watertown Mayor, Michael J. Hennegan, City of Watertown Police Chief, Police Officer Woods, City of Watertown, Defendants, |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
ANTHONY J. PETERKIN, PRO SE, OGDENSBURG, NEW YORK APPEARING FOR APPELLANT:
CATHERINE J. PALERMO, ESQ., WATERTOWN, NEW YORK APPEARING FOR APPELLEE:
Plaintiff-appellant Anthony James Peterkin, who is proceeding pro se, appeals from a judgment of the district court dismissing his civil rights complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(c). On October 21, 1991, Peterkin filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Donald F. Newberry, Sheriff of the Jefferson County Jail, alleging that his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights were violated. Specifically, Peterkin claimed that, while he was a pretrial detainee incarcerated at the Jefferson County Jail, he suffered back injuries because of inadequate bedding. It is undisputed that Peterkin was housed for approximately twenty-six days during June and July 1991 in a "catwalk" area between a group of cells where he was made to sleep on a floor mattress. During this period, Jefferson County Jail was overcrowded; Newberry allegedly received, but did not produce, a variance from the New York State Commission of Corrections for temporary housing arrangements. In 1992, the Jefferson County Jail was closed and replaced by a new facility.
At the conclusion of the evidence during an April 1995 bench trial, Magistrate Judge Scanlon granted Newberry's motion for judgment on partial findings on the ground that Peterkin failed to meet his burden of proof and dismissed his complaint pursuant to Rule 52(c). Peterkin filed this timely appeal, claiming that the magistrate judge's dismissal was in error because it was a per se constitutional violation to make him sleep on the floor. Newberry argues that sleeping on a floor mattress is not a per se constitutional violation and contends that the evidence at trial demonstrated that Peterkin was provided with a clean and sanitary mattress, hygiene products, access to all of the facility's resources, and enjoyed the same privileges as the general inmate population.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. McGinnis
...muster, Lareau v. Manson, 651 F.2d 96, 107 (2d Cir. 1981), but this should not be considered a per se rule, see Peterkin v. Walker, 101 F.3d 681, 1996 WL 146530, at *1 (table) (2d Cir. 1996), and Elmira does not force inmates to sleep on the floor "as a regular method." A proper analysis re......
-
McNair v.
...Lareau v. Manson, 651 F.2d 96, 107 (2d Cir.1981), but [that] this should not be considered a perse rule, seePeterkin v. Walker, 101 F.3d 681, 1996 WL 146530, at *1 (table) (2d Cir.1996) . . . . A proper analysis requires this Court to consider all the particular circumstances of the case. S......