Adeyola v. Gibon
Decision Date | 21 February 2008 |
Docket Number | No. 04-CV-6325L.,04-CV-6325L. |
Citation | 537 F.Supp.2d 479 |
Parties | Umar ADEYOLA, Plaintiff, v. Supt. H. McCarthy GIBON, et al., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of New York |
Umar Adeyola, Batavia, NY, pro se.
Kristin Klein Wheaton, Assistant County Attorney, Buffalo, NY, for Defendants.
DECISION AND ORDER
Plaintiff, Umar Adeyola, appearing pro se, commenced this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff, who at the time of the filing of the complaint was an inmate in the custody of the New York State Department of Correctional Services ("DOCS") alleges that defendants have violated the First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution in certain respects. Specifically, plaintiff, who is Muslim, alleges that in 2004, while he was confined at Erie County Holding Center ("ECHC"), certain Muslim females, wearing head scarves in accordance with their religious beliefs, came to visit him. Defendants allegedly would not allow them to visit plaintiff unless they either removed their head scarves and allowed themselves to be searched, or provided written proof (such as a letter from an imam) attesting to the fact that they were practicing Muslims.
Defendants, who include the then-Erie County Sheriff and a number of employees of ECHC, have moved for summary judgment. Plaintiff has cross-moved for summary judgment and for leave to amend his complaint.
Having reviewed the complaint, plaintiff's proposed amended complaint, and both sides' moving papers, I conclude that defendants are entitled to summary judgment. Plaintiff lacks standings to assert any of his claims.
All of plaintiffs claims relate to actions taken toward his visitors, not toward him. This he may not do.
The "irreducible constitutional minimum" of standing requires, inter alia, "that the plaintiff has suffered an `injury in fact'...." Center for Reproductive Law and Policy v. Bush, 304 F.3d 183, 191 (2d Cir.2002) (quoting Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992)) (emphasis added). A plaintiff may assert the constitutional claims of a third party only if he can demonstrate: (1) injury to the plaintiff; (2) a close relationship between the plaintiff and the third party that would cause plaintiff to be an effective advocate for the third party's rights; and (3) "some hindrance to the third party's ability to protect his or her own interests." Campbell v. Louisiana, 523 U.S. 392, 397, 118 S.Ct. 1419, 140 L.Ed.2d 551 (1998). Plaintiff has not alleged any such facts, either in the original or proposed amended complaints. His claims must therefore be dismissed. See, e.g., Manning v. NFN Wells, No. 6:06-cv-0911, 2007 WL 1140422, at *5 (D.S.C. Apr. 17, 2007) () ; Jones v. Wagner, No. 89-9104, 1990 WL 11655, at *1 (E.D.Pa. Feb. 7, 1990) () (quoting United States v. Raines, 362 U.S. 17, 22, 80 S.Ct. 519, 4 L.Ed.2d 524 (1960)); Wool v. Hogan, 505 F.Supp. 928, 931 (D.Vt.1981) () (footnote omitted).
To the extent that plaintiff is alleging that his own right to visitation has been violated, such a claim fails. "There is no absolute constitutional right to visitation," Jones, 1990 WL 11655 at *1 (citing Lynott v. Henderson, 610 F.2d 340, 342 (5th Cir.1980)), and, "[a]t the very least, `first amendment values must give way to reasonable considerations of prison management. ...'" Id. (quoting St. Claire v. Cuyler, 634 F.2d 109, 114 (3d Cir.1980)). It was certainly reasonable for ECHC to require plaintiff's visitors to remove their head scarves to determine that they were not attempting to bring in contraband. See Manning, 2007 WL 1140422, at. *5 (). In any event, plaintiff has not been denied visitors; his would-be...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Marrero v. Weir
...are reasonably related to a legitimate penological interest do not violate a prisoner'sconstitutional right."); Adeyola v. Gibon, 537 F. Supp. 2d 479, 481 (W.D.N.Y. 2008) ("[T]here is no absolute constitutional right to visitation, and, at the very least, first amendment values must give wa......
-
Part 1: complete case summaries in alphabetical order.
...& REGULATIONS-PRISONER: Clothing, Visits SEARCHES: Visitor Searches VISITING: Restrictions, Visitor Searches Adeyola v. Gibon, 537 F.Supp.2d 479 (W.D.N.Y. 2008). An inmate brought a pro se action against a sheriff and correctional facility officials, alleging that they violated his cons......