Antrobus v. Dapecevic, 17-CV-5840 (KMK)
| Decision Date | 02 July 2018 |
| Docket Number | 17-CV-5840 (KMK) |
| Parties | ANDRE ANTROBUS, Plaintiff, v. C.O. DAPECEVIC; C.O. WELLINGTON; SUPT. THOMAS R. GRIFFEN, GREENHAVEN C.F.; ANTHONY ANNUCCI, COMM.; AND SUPV. MS. KNAPP., GREENHAVEN C.F., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Appearances:
Andre Antrobus
Orangeburg, NY
Kara F. Sweet, Esq.
New York State Office of the Attorney General
New York, NY
Plaintiff brings this Action against Correctional Officer Dapecevic ("Dapecevic"), Correctional Officer Wellington ("Wellington"), Superintendent Thomas R. Griffen ("Griffen"), Supervisor Knapp ("Knapp"), and Commissioner Anthony Annucci ("Annucci") (collectively, "Defendants"), pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claims that Defendants violated his constitutional rights when his grievances were met with inaction and retaliation while he was incarcerated at Green Haven Correctional Facility ("Green Haven"). 1 Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that his mail was being blocked after officers were informed that he filed several grievances against them. Plaintiff also claims that his access to the grievance system was blocked, despite alerting authorities such as the New York State Attorney General, and that he was retaliated against through excessive strip searches. (Fifth Am. Compl. 5.) Plaintiff claims that he was physically assaulted during several of these strip searches and that his requests for medical attention were ignored. (Compl. 2, 5; Fifth Am. Coml. 5-6.) Plaintiff is requesting $750,000 in punitive damages and an additional $750,000 in compensatory damages for a total of $1,500,000. (Fifth Am. Compl. 6.)2
Before the Court is Defendants' motion to revoke Plaintiff's in forma pauperis ("IFP") status and dismiss the case (the "Motion"). (" ) For the following reasons, Defendants' Motion is granted.
The following facts are drawn from Plaintiff's Complaints and the documents appended thereto.4 Beginning sometime in 2014, Plaintiff alleges that Officers at Green Haven began to block his mail. (Compl. 2; Fourth Am. Compl. 3 (Dkt. 36).)5 When Plaintiff filed a grievanceabout not receiving his mail, Dapecevic and Wellington were informed, and they allegedly began to threaten him with "serious physical injury." (Fourth Am. Compl. 3-4; Fifth Am. Coml. 5 ().) Plaintiff also allegedly received threats of injury and death from an unidentified "beat up squad" at Green Haven. (Compl. 2.) Upon being threatened, Plaintiff wrote letters to outside entities, including the Attorney General, Annucci, and the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision ("DOCCS"). (Compl. 8; Fourth Am. Compl. 4; Fifth Am. Compl. 5.)
Plaintiff's letters to outside agencies were allegedly intercepted by some unidentified Green Haven employees, and allegedly because of those letters and his continued grievances, he was threatened again. (See Fourth Am. Compl. 4 (); Fifth Am. Compl. 5 ().) When Plaintiff attempted to file another grievance, it was blocked, and the retaliation escalated to Dapecevic and Wellington strip searching him in front of at least several female Correctional Officers, which persisted for 11 months. (Compl. 5; see also Fourth Am. Compl. 4 (); Fifth Am. Compl. 5 ().) Plaintiff has supported this claim with a number of notarized affidavits from fellow inmates who allegedly witnessed the strip searches. (Letter from Plaintiff to Court (Oct. 17, 2017) ("Pl.'s Oct. 17 Letter") Exs. 9-10, 12-15 (Dkt. No. 26).)
When Plaintiff asked to see the "search slip" during one of the strip searches, he was "punched in [the] head and body." (Compl. 2; see also Fourth Am. Compl. 5; Fifth Am. Compl. 5.)6 During another strip search, Plaintiff requested the strip search slip again, after speaking out about the strip searches in several community meetings in Green Haven, and he was thrown into a wall, injuring his shoulder and back, and punched repeatedly in those areas. (Compl. 2, 5; Fourth Am. Compl. 5; Fifth Am. Compl. 5.) Plaintiff does not specifically identify who assaulted him, but, construing his submissions liberally, he may be alleging that his attacker(s) was/were Dapecevic, Wellington, or both. (See, e.g., Compl. 5 (alleging that at least Dapecevic and Wellington strip searched Plaintiff in retaliation for his grievances and that the retaliation was "[i]njury to [s]houlder and [b]ack when we complained about the violation thrown into wall").) Plaintiff requested medical attention for his injuries, but "was denied." (Compl. 2.) When Plaintiff finally received medical attention two years later, he learned that he had injuries to two of his spinal disks. (Letter from Plaintiff to Court (Aug. 25, 2017) ("Pl.'s Aug. 25 Letter") 2 (Dkt. No. 10).) When Plaintiff complained about the strip searches and his injuries at community meetings, Knapp and others threatened him if he did not stop, stating that "if you don't like it leave [and] . . . we will make you leave by all means necessary." 2 ("[Plaintiff] brings it up in community meeting and was threaten[ed] privately and in front of inmates . . . if you don[']t like it you can leave or we will make you leave, to stay under the radar or get hurt, urge of warning they out to get you . . ."); id. at 8 ( ).)
In 2014 or 2015, Plaintiff was moved to Great Meadow Correctional Facility ("Great Meadow") and the retaliation that began at Green Haven allegedly followed him. (Compl. 4; Fifth Am. Compl. 6.) "By the time [Plaintiff] reached Great Meadow . . . Green Haven . . . called Great Meadow and the officers and the sergeant took [Plaintiff] in a secluded area and threaten[ed] [him] not [to] follow up on this lawsuit." (Pl.'s Aug. 25 Letter 2.) Plaintiff was additionally threatened several times by an unidentified caller from Green Haven. (Compl. 4.) Plaintiff alleges that calls from Green Haven to Great Meadow occurred weekly, inciting retaliation against Plaintiff. He also received death threats from Great Meadow's "beat up squad," though he does not identify the members of this squad. (Compl. 4; see also Fifth Am. Compl. 6.)7
Plaintiff filed the initial Complaint on August 1, 2017. (Dkt. No. 2.) Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on August 9, 2017. (Dkt. No. 6.) On August 22, 2017, Plaintiff's application for IFP status was granted. (Dkt. No. 8.) From September 2017 to January 2018, Plaintiff, without the consent of Defendants or being granted leave from the Court, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), filed four additional amended complaints, (Dkt. Nos. 13, 15, 36, 67) and dozens of motions and submissions to the Court, (see, e.g., Dkt. Nos. 21-23, 25-27, 30, 38, 41, 43, 51, 54, 61), prompting Defendants to file the instant Motion on January 19, 2018, (Dkt. No. 65).The Court ordered Plaintiff to respond to the Motion and stayed Defendants' deadline to answer or file a pre-motion letter. (Dkt. No. 66.)
However, Plaintiff filed the operative Fifth Amended Complaint on January 24, 2018, and submitted additional documents on February 1 and 2, 2018. (Fifth Am. Compl; Dkt. Nos. 68-70.) The Court therefore ordered Plaintiff to stop filing amended complaints and any additional documents except for his response to the Motion. (Dkt. No. 71.) The Court had already issued several orders instructing the Plaintiff to cease filing submissions, motions, and amended complaints, (see Dkt. Nos. 55, 57, 64), and has continued to do so since February 6, 2018, (see Dkt. Nos. 72, 76, 84). Despite the Court's repeated orders, however, Plaintiff has continued to make submissions to the Court while Defendants' Motion has been pending. (See Dkt. Nos. 67-70, 75, 77, 81-82.)8 In particular, on March 15, 2018, Plaintiff wrote a letter to the Court asking: "Can I pay $140.00 dollars to finish pay[ing] the difference . . . can you give me a month cause it[']s so soon and then pay the rest of the . . . ones in installments." (Letter from Plaintiff to Court (March 15, 2018) (Dkt. No. 85).) The Court noted that this "request to pay $140.00 sounds like a request to pay the filing fee and therefore moot the pending motion to revoke his IFP status," and thus directed Plaintiff to "clarify[] if that is his intent by 4/16/18." (Dkt. No. 86.) Plaintiff did not comply with that order. (See Dkt.)
The Court granted Plaintiff's application to proceed in this case IFP on August 22, 2017. (See Dkt. No. 8.) As a result, Plaintiff has been able to proceed and make submissions to the court without the payment of fees. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Defendants now move to revokePlaintiff's IFP status on the ground that he has amassed at least three "strikes," requiring the revocation of the status under the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA"...
To continue reading
Request your trial