Barnes v. Cnty. of Monroe, No. 10–CV–6164 EAW.

CourtUnited States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court of Western District of New York
Writing for the CourtELIZABETH A. WOLFORD, District Judge.
Citation85 F.Supp.3d 696
Docket NumberNo. 10–CV–6164 EAW.
Decision Date10 February 2015
PartiesJessie J. BARNES, 09–B–2707, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF MONROE, et al., Defendants.

85 F.Supp.3d 696

Jessie J. BARNES, 09–B–2707, Plaintiff
v.
COUNTY OF MONROE, et al., Defendants.

No. 10–CV–6164 EAW.

United States District Court, W.D. New York.

Signed Feb. 10, 2015.


85 F.Supp.3d 708

Jessie J. Barnes, Malone, NY, pro se.

Mallorie C. Rulison, Monroe County Department of Law, Rochester, NY, for Defendants.

DECISION AND ORDER

ELIZABETH A. WOLFORD, District Judge.

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Jessie James Barnes (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, is an inmate currently housed at Upstate Correctional Facility. Plaintiff brings the instant action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Defendants committed various violations of Plaintiff's state and constitutional rights while he was detained at the Monroe County Jail (“MCJ”) during 2008 and 2009.

Presently before the Court is the motion by Defendants County of Monroe, Monroe County Executive Maggie Brooks, Monroe County Sheriff Patrick M. O'Flynn, MCJ Superintendent Ronald Harling, Major E. Krenzer, Major Caceci, Captain Jolly, Captain Thomas, Lieutenant Dimartino, Lieutenant Lipari, Lieutenant Horan, Lieutenant Kaiser, Lieutenant Kloner, Sergeant

85 F.Supp.3d 709

DeRosa, Sergeant Mooney, Sergeant McGowan, Sergeant Hayes, Corporal Kimball, Corporal Gatti, Corporal Guest, Corporal Knapp, Corporal Cardella, Corporal Amatore, Corporal Kennelly, Corporal Pratt, Corporal Inipoli, Corporal Preston, Corporal T. Peck, Corporal S. Peck, Corporal Shellard, Corporal Carlo, Corporal Tripoli, Corporal Messura, Deputy Kluth, Deputy Scally, Deputy Luther, Deputy Atkins, Deputy Newton, Deputy Willis, Deputy Waud, Deputy James Amico, Deputy Ellen Danehy, Deputy Isiah Raby, Deputy Fitzsimmons, Deputy Palma, Deputy Daly, Deputy Galen, Deputy DiFlores, Deputy Alberti, Jane Doe Nurse, Nurse Mary, Greg Domalski, Bradley Meister, Avis Robinson, E. Holman, Letitia Miller, Michelle Rizzo, and Todd Thibaut (“County Defendants”)1 for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c) (Dkt. 119), Defendant Ellie Holman's separate motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c) (Dkt. 120),2 Plaintiff's motion for recusal (Dkt. 142), and Plaintiff's request to convert Defendants' motions for judgment on the pleadings into a motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 133).

For the following reasons, the County Defendants' motion (Dkt. 119) is granted in part and denied in part, Defendant Holman's motion (Dkt. 120) is granted, and Plaintiff's request to convert Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings into a motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 133) is denied. In addition, Plaintiff's motion for recusal (Dkt. 142) is denied.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed his original complaint in this matter on March 22, 2010, alleging numerous causes of action against approximately 88 Defendants, along with an application to proceed in forma pauperis. (Dkt. 1, 2). On April 1, 2010, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Dkt. 3). In that order, the Court also dismissed Defendants Ontario County and Ontario County Attorney as parties to this action. (Id .).

Plaintiff filed a motion to appoint counsel on April 28, 2010 (Dkt. 4), and on May 17, 2010, the Court denied his motion (Dkt. 5).

On July 6, 2010, the County Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. (Dkt. 6). On July 27, 2010, the Court added Corporal Messura as a Defendant. (Dkt. 10). Plaintiff moved to amend his complaint on August 3, 2010. (Dkt. 12). On October 6, 2010, Defendants Beilein, Harrison–Ross, and Stewart filed a motion for summary judgment. (Dkt. 18). On December 27, 2010, Plaintiff filed another motion to

85 F.Supp.3d 710

amend his complaint. (Dkt. 27). On July 26, 2011, Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed Defendants Beilein, Harrison–Ross, Stewart, and the Citizen's Policy and Complaint Review Council, and the Court dismissed these parties with prejudice by Court order. (Dkt. 60, 61). On January 11, 2012, 2012 WL 92553, the Court issued an order granting Plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint (Dkt. 27), and dismissing as moot Plaintiff's additional motion to amend (Dkt. 12) as well as the County Defendants' motion to dismiss (Dkt. 6). (Dkt. 62).

On January 25, 2012, Plaintiff filed his second amended complaint. (Dkt. 64). On March 22, 2012, the Court ordered that Plaintiff's second amended complaint be amended to insert the name of Cynthia L. Muller in place of the aforementioned Jane Doe nurse. (Dkt. 78). On April 10, 2012, the County Defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. (Dkt. 82). On June 6, 2012, the Court ordered that Defendants Greg Domalski, Bradley Meister, Avis Robinson, Deputy Fitzsimmons, James Amico, and Deputy Ellen Danehy be added as Defendants in place of formerly named John Does. (Dkt. 92). Plaintiff filed a motion to amend his complaint on July 26, 2012. (Dkt. 96). On August 1, 2012, Defendants Mary Ann McQueeney and Debbie Scarpulla, two nurses employed by Correctional Medical Care, Inc. (“CMC”), filed a motion to dismiss the claims against them. (Dkt. 97).

On August 2, 2012, the Court granted Plaintiff's request to file a third amended complaint, making Plaintiff's third amended complaint the operative pleading for this matter. (Dkt. 99).

On August 2, 2012, the Court dismissed Defendants McQueeney, Scarpulla, Bye, Showers, Schultz, Wheatley, Burns, Caviccholi, Harris, Knox, Lopez, Chance, Gallina, and Potocki in accordance with Plaintiff's voluntary dismissal of these Defendants. (Dkt. 100). The outstanding motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. 82) and motion to dismiss (Dkt. 97) were denied as moot. (Dkt. 99).

On February 4, 2013, the County Defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. 119), and the remaining Defendants, Holman and Muller, filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim (Dkt. 120).

The County Defendants filed a motion to stay discovery on March 7, 2013. (Dkt. 125). The remaining Defendants filed a declaration in support of this motion to stay discovery on March 13, 2013. (Dkt. 127).

On June 19, 2013, Plaintiff filed his response to Defendants' motions and requested that the County Defendants' motion be converted into a motion for summary judgment and be granted in his favor. (Dkt. 133).

On July 11, 2013, the Court dismissed Defendant Muller in accordance with Plaintiff's voluntary dismissal of this Defendant. (Dkt. 135).

The Court granted Defendants' motion to stay discovery (Dkt. 125) on September 19, 2013, 2013 WL 5298574 (Dkt. 138). On February 13, 2014, the Honorable Charles J. Siragusa, United States District Judge for the Western District of New York, transferred this case to the undersigned. (Dkt. 141).

On January 13, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for the recusal of the undersigned. (Dkt. 142).

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff's third amended complaint against the remaining 58 Defendants asserts the following facts. (Dkt. 95).

In or about July 2008, Plaintiff was arrested, charged with burglary, and remanded

85 F.Supp.3d 711

to MCJ pending trial. (Id. at ¶ 20).

On August 7, 2008, Plaintiff was fighting with two other inmates, Trustee Eades and Tyrone Members, when Defendant Newton jumped on Plaintiff's back, struck Plaintiff in the mouth, and knocked out one of Plaintiff's front teeth. (Id. ). Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Newton “premeditated” the attack on Plaintiff, and that Defendants Amico and Danehy “collaborated” with Defendant Newton to delay the call of a “Code 1,” allowing Plaintiff to be attacked by the other inmates. (Id. at ¶¶ 30–32). Plaintiff claims that inmate Eades' cousin told Plaintiff on June 12, 2009, that Defendant Newton was aware that inmates Eades and Members were going to “attack” Plaintiff and indicated that he would “take care of the Code # 1 response and finish the plaintiff off himself.” (Id. at ¶ 32).

As a result of the August 7, 2008 altercation, Plaintiff was placed in the special housing unit (“SHU”) by Defendants Luther, Newton, DeRosa, Jolly, Krenzer, Horan, Kaiser, and Dimartino. (Id. at ¶ 75). Plaintiff was housed in SHU from August 7, 2008 through August 21, 2008, under full mechanical restraints and under a shower and exercise deprivation order. (Id. ).

Although it was not specified in the complaint, Plaintiff must have been released at some time after August 21, 2008, because on October 9, 2008, Plaintiff was arrested after a high-speed chase and was again detained at MCJ on charges of burglary and reckless endangerment, awaiting his July 13, 2009 trial. (Id. at ¶ 21).

On October 11, 2008, Defendants DeRosa, Horan, and Jolly placed Plaintiff in SHU. (Id. at ¶ 22). Plaintiff alleges that Defendant DeRosa placed him in SHU in retaliation for the burglary of a family member that may have been committed by Plaintiff. (Id. at ¶ 76). Plaintiff further alleges that his placement in SHU violated his rights to due process. (Id. at ¶ 77). On October 16, 2008, Defendant...

To continue reading

Request your trial
43 practice notes
  • Hamilton v. N.Y. State Dep't of Corr. & Cmty. Supervison, 9:18-CV-1312 (MAD/CFH)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court of Northern District of New York
    • June 4, 2019
    ...plead a retaliation claim against Pitoniak, Schenk, Vanni, Porter, and Silcox to require a response. See Barnes v. Cty. of Monroe, 85 F. Supp. 3d 696, 731 (W.D.N.Y. 2015) (theft of the plaintiff's commissary may be construed as an adverse action). In so ruling, the Court expresses no opinio......
  • Byrd v. City of N.Y., 17 Civ. 2166 (AJP)
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • January 2, 2018
    ...V.C.B.C. was going to be one he never forgot" (see page 2 above) is too vague to support a claim. See, e.g., Barnes v. Cty. of Monroe, 85 F. Supp. 3d 696, 739-40 (W.D.N.Y. 2015) (defendant CO's threats that "he would kill Plaintiff," a pretrial detainee, were "too general to support a const......
  • Preterotti v. Souliere, Civil Action No. 2:16-cv-72-wks-jmc
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. District of Vermont
    • December 28, 2016
    ...nonexhaustion," and it is "not [the] [p]laintiff's burden to plead exhaustion with particularity." Barnes v. County of Monroe, 85 F. Supp. 3d 696, 722 (W.D.N.Y. 2015); see also Jones, 549 U.S. at 216 ("[I]nmates are not required to specially plead or demonstrate exhaustion in their complain......
  • Herbert v. Cattaraugus Cnty., 17-CV-248S
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court of Western District of New York
    • November 13, 2017
    ...and a direct causal connection between that policy or custom and the deprivation of a constitutional right. Barnes v. Cty. of Monroe, 85 F. Supp. 3d 696, 718 (W.D.N.Y. 2015). Here, the only policy or custom identified by Plaintiff is a passing reference to the state of New York and Cattarau......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
43 cases
  • Hamilton v. N.Y. State Dep't of Corr. & Cmty. Supervison, 9:18-CV-1312 (MAD/CFH)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court of Northern District of New York
    • June 4, 2019
    ...plead a retaliation claim against Pitoniak, Schenk, Vanni, Porter, and Silcox to require a response. See Barnes v. Cty. of Monroe, 85 F. Supp. 3d 696, 731 (W.D.N.Y. 2015) (theft of the plaintiff's commissary may be construed as an adverse action). In so ruling, the Court expresses no opinio......
  • Byrd v. City of N.Y., 17 Civ. 2166 (AJP)
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • January 2, 2018
    ...V.C.B.C. was going to be one he never forgot" (see page 2 above) is too vague to support a claim. See, e.g., Barnes v. Cty. of Monroe, 85 F. Supp. 3d 696, 739-40 (W.D.N.Y. 2015) (defendant CO's threats that "he would kill Plaintiff," a pretrial detainee, were "too general to support a const......
  • Preterotti v. Souliere, Civil Action No. 2:16-cv-72-wks-jmc
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. District of Vermont
    • December 28, 2016
    ...nonexhaustion," and it is "not [the] [p]laintiff's burden to plead exhaustion with particularity." Barnes v. County of Monroe, 85 F. Supp. 3d 696, 722 (W.D.N.Y. 2015); see also Jones, 549 U.S. at 216 ("[I]nmates are not required to specially plead or demonstrate exhaustion in their complain......
  • Herbert v. Cattaraugus Cnty., 17-CV-248S
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court of Western District of New York
    • November 13, 2017
    ...and a direct causal connection between that policy or custom and the deprivation of a constitutional right. Barnes v. Cty. of Monroe, 85 F. Supp. 3d 696, 718 (W.D.N.Y. 2015). Here, the only policy or custom identified by Plaintiff is a passing reference to the state of New York and Cattarau......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT