Abreu v. Farley
| Decision Date | 15 March 2019 |
| Docket Number | 6:11-CV-06251 EAW |
| Parties | CARLOS ABREU, Plaintiff, v. ERIC FARLEY, ET AL., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of New York |
Plaintiff Carlos Abreu ("Plaintiff"), currently incarcerated at the Marcy Correctional Facility,1 filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging constitutional violations arising out of his incarceration at the Five Points Correctional Facility ("Five Points"). (Dkt. 1). After this Court's initial screening of Plaintiff's first complaint, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP"). (Dkt. 3). Soon thereafter, Plaintiff was appointed pro bono counsel to assist in the prosecution of this action. (See Dkt. 9). Plaintiff has since filed voluminous pleadings, alleging numerous grounds for which he believes he is entitled to relief against an array of individuals.
Presently before the Court is Defendants' motion to revoke Plaintiff's IFP status and for partial summary judgment. (Dkt. 61). For the reasons set forth below, the Court holds Defendants' motion to revoke Plaintiff's IFP status in abeyance pending the SecondCircuit's decision in Shepherd v. Annucci, No. 17-2261 (2d Cir. July 21, 2017), grants in part and denies in part Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment, and stays this action until the Court resolves Defendants' motion for IFP revocation.
Plaintiff arrived at Five Points on or about March 25, 2010 (Dkt. 46 at ¶ 93), and alleges that he has been subject to countless constitutional infractions, and other allegedly wrongful conduct, which purportedly continued into 2012. Despite pro bono counsel's efforts to refine Plaintiff's allegations, the operative complaint remains voluminous and is composed of 531 paragraphs. Plaintiff's counsel also requests that the Court consider two supplemental pro se filings submitted by Plaintiff as part of a related case that has since been consolidated into this action. (Dkt. 93 at 25-26; see Dkt. 40; Dkt. 93-5; Dkt. 93-6; Dkt. 93-7; Dkt. 93-8; Dkt. 93-9; Dkt. 93-10).
The following facts are taken from Defendants' and Plaintiff's Rule 56 statements of undisputed facts. (See Dkt. 59-1; Dkt. 93-1). Between 2010 and January of 2012, Plaintiff was examined "well over 100 times" by medical staff at Five Points. (Dkt. 59-1 at ¶ 1; Dkt. 93-1 at ¶ 1). Although Plaintiff disputes that he was prescribed appropriate medical treatment for back and neck pain on a number of occasions (Dkt. 93-1 at ¶ 2; cf. Dkt. 59-1 at ¶ 2), he does not dispute that he was prescribed "an albuterol inhaler for asthma and Lipitor for elevated lipids" (Dkt. 93-1 at ¶ 2). It is also undisputed that Plaintiff received medication, bloodwork, physical examinations, and x-rays between March 25, 2010, and January 23, 2012 (see Dkt. 59-1 at ¶ 6; Dkt. 93-1 at ¶ 6), and that he refused totake medications and to undergo physical examinations on several occasions while at Five Points (see Dkt. 59-1 at ¶ 8; Dkt. 93-1 at ¶ 8).
The parties dispute whether Plaintiff was of general good health while housed at Five Points (Dkt. 59-1 at ¶ 4; Dkt. 93-1 at ¶ 4), and whether many of Plaintiff's alleged injuries and ailments were ever properly diagnosed or observed by Five Points medical staff (Dkt. 59-1 at ¶ 5; Dkt. 93-1 at ¶ 5). Plaintiff also disputes Defendants' assertion that he was "not in imminent danger of serious physical harm at any point during the relevant period" underlying this action (Dkt. 59-1 at ¶ 3), and argues that he "endured repeated assaults, living under a constant and imminent danger [of] being subjected to ongoing threats of further physical assaults" while housed at Five Points (Dkt. 93-1 at ¶ 3). The parties do not dispute that only doctors, physicians assistants, and nurse practitioners may provide prescription medication to inmates at Five Points, that corrections officers and counselors may not do so, and that general nurses may provide limited medical treatment only in emergency circumstances. (See Dkt. 59-1 at ¶ 9; Dkt. 93-1 at ¶ 9).
The New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision ("DOCCS") maintains a policy that corrections staff seek a court order if an inmate loses 15% of his or her baseline weight, or even prior to that point if the inmate "appears in imminent need of hydration or nutrition." (Dkt. 59-1 at ¶ 10; Dkt. 93-1 at ¶ 10). In addition, it is undisputed that Plaintiff's baseline weight remained above 200 pounds between March 2010 and January 2012 (Dkt. 59-1 at ¶ 11; Dkt. 93-1 at ¶ 11), and at no point did it drop by 30 pounds, or 15% of Plaintiff's baseline weight (Dkt. 59-1 at ¶ 12; Dkt. 93-1 at ¶ 12).
At times, Plaintiff complained that he suffered from rectal bleeding, but on at least one occasion, Dr. Daniel Weinstock ("Dr. Weinstock") took Plaintiff's stool samples and discovered no blood after running hemoccult tests on April 18 and April 26, 2011. (Dkt. 59-1 at ¶ 16; Dkt. 93-1 at ¶ 16). Although Plaintiff disputes Defendants' assertion that he "frequently harassed medical staff" (Dkt. 59-1 at ¶ 17; Dkt. 93-1 at ¶ 17), it is undisputed that Five Points staff submitted written misbehavior reports regarding Plaintiff's conduct on several occasions (Dkt. 59-1 at ¶ 18; Dkt. 93-1 at ¶ 18; but see Dkt. 93-1 at ¶ 18 ()).
While Plaintiff claims that Defendants' decision not to provide him with an interpreter during his Tier II and Tier III violation hearings violated his right to due process (Dkt. 93-1 at ¶ 19), he does not dispute that he was found guilty of Tier II and Tier III violations 17 times during the relevant period underlying this action (Dkt. 59-1 at ¶ 19; Dkt. 93-1 at ¶ 19). Relatedly, Plaintiff's fluency in the English language is a point of contention between the parties. (Dkt. 59-1 at ¶ 23; Dkt. 93-1 at ¶ 23). For example, Defendants contend that Plaintiff could meaningfully converse with corrections staff in English (Dkt. 59-1 at ¶ 23), but Plaintiff states that his understanding of the English language is limited and notes that Spanish is his native language (Dkt. 93-1 at ¶ 23). Despite his disciplinary violations, Plaintiff received a "time cut" for each violation, save one, during the period extending from February 23, 2010, to July 5, 2013. (Dkt. 59-1 at ¶ 20; Dkt. 93-1 at ¶ 20). Plaintiff was not required to serve any time in the Special Housing Unit ("SHU") and did not lose any good time credits as a result of these violations. (Dkt. 59-1 at ¶ 20; Dkt. 93-1 at ¶ 20). Plaintiff did spend two months' time in the SHU for anincident occurring in May 27, 2010, but he did not serve this time until December 2013 because he had accumulated SHU time from other incidents predating 2010. (Dkt. 59-1 at ¶ 22; Dkt. 93-1 at ¶ 22).
DOCCS Directive 4421 sets forth DOCCS' policy regarding inmate mailings. (Dkt. 59-1 at ¶ 25; Dkt. 93-1 at ¶ 25). Directive 4421 permits inmates to mail five first-class legal letters free of charge per week and allows inmates an advance of up to $20 for additional legal mail. (Dkt. 59-1 at ¶ 25; Dkt. 93-1 at ¶ 25). Inmates also receive free postage for documents that "must be sent pursuant to a Court Order, statute of limitations or legal deadline, if, by rule, such correspondence must be sent prior to receipt of the next week's free postage allowance." (Dkt. 59-1 at ¶ 26; Dkt. 93-1 at ¶ 26). Plaintiff almost always exhausted his weekly allotment of five free legal letters and used up his $20 advance immediately upon arriving at Five Points. (Dkt. 59-1 at ¶ 27; Dkt. 93-1 at ¶ 27). However, Plaintiff disputes that he was afforded free postage when a deadline so entitled him—although "on several occasions, a court order or other deadline entitled him to free postage"—and states that certain correspondence he addressed to courts, government officials, and legal organizations was refused postage. (Dkt. 93-1 at ¶ 27).
On May 10, 2011, Plaintiff commenced this action by filing a voluminous 340-page complaint, alleging various injuries arising from the actions of over 130 defendants. (See Dkt. 1). Plaintiff also filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. 3) and a motion for appointment of counsel (Dkt. 4). By Order, dated May 25, 2011, Plaintiff was granted in forma pauperis status, and was directed to amend his complaint in compliancewith Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Dkt. 5); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (). On August 11, 2011, Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel was granted and pro bono counsel was assigned. (Dkt. 9). On April 1, 2013, Plaintiff filed a 101-page amended complaint (Dkt. 35), and on September 19, 2013, a related case—also instituted by Plaintiff—was merged with this matter (Dkt. 40). The pro se complaint and supplemental filings submitted in the related case constituted a Supplemental Complaint in the instant action. (Id. at 12; see Dkt. 41).
On February 21, 2014, Plaintiff filed a 103-page second amended complaint (the "SAC"), which, alongside the pro se Supplemental Complaint, remains the operative pleading in this matter. (Dkt. 46). This action was reassigned to the undersigned on January 5, 2015. (Dkt. 48).
On April 6, 2015, Defendants filed a motion for partial summary judgment in lieu of an answer. (Dkt. 59). Defendants also request that the Court revoke Plaintiff's IFP status. (See Dkt. 59-2 at 5-6). After several appearances and extensions of time, Plaintiff filed responsive papers on July 15, 2016, opposing Defendants' motion. (Dkt. 93). Defendants filed reply papers in further support of their motion on September 21, 2016. (Dkt. 105).
A party commencing a civil action in this Court ordinarily must pay a $350.00 filing fee, as well as a $50.00...
To continue reading
Request your trial