Beauvoir v. Falco

• Decision Date: 05 November 2018
• Docket Number: 14-cv-00669 (NSR)
• Parties: Jimmy BEAUVOIR, Plaintiff, v. Rockland County Sheriff FALCO, Lt. Byran, Sgt. Mueler, Sgt. Hickey, C/O Pereze, C/O Levine, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

345 F.Supp.3d 350

Jimmy BEAUVOIR, Plaintiff,

v.Rockland County Sheriff FALCO, Lt. Byran, Sgt. Mueler, Sgt. Hickey, C/O Pereze, C/O Levine, Defendants.

14-cv-00669 (NSR)

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

Signed November 5, 2018

Jimmy Beauvoir, Bronx, NY, pro se.

Paul S. Ernenwein, Tarshis, Catania, Liberth, Mahon & Milligram, Newburgh, NY, Ari Isaac Bauer, P.E.L.S, Thomas Edward Humbach, County of Rockland Department of Law, New York, NY, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM DECISION

NELSON S. ROMÁN, United States District JudgeJimmy Beauvoir ("Plaintiff"), an incarcerated pro se litigant, commenced this action on January 30, 2014 against: Rockland County Sheriff Falco ("Falco"), Lieutenant Byran ("Byran"), Sergeant Mueler ("St. Mueller" or "Mueller") (incorrectly spelled in the caption as "Mueler"), Sergeant Hickey ("Hickey"), C/O Pereze ("Pereze"), C/O Levine ("Levine"), (collectively "Defendants"), pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (See Amended Complaint ("AC"), ECF No. 29.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendants are liable for violating his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishments because they inflicted pain on him in a wanton, malicious, or sadistic way when they 1) sprayed him with pepper spray and 2) placed him in locked intake for two weeks, during which he allegedly spent several days without access to toiletries or a shower. (See Plaintiff's Letter dated 8/14/14, ("8/14/14 Letter"), ECF No. 29; Plaintiff's Letter Dated 10/23/17, ("10/23/17 Letter"), ECF No. 14.) Consequently, Plaintiff seeks $2.5 trillion in damages. (AC § V.)

Presently before the Court is Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Motion for Summary Judgment, ("Defendant's Motion"), ECF No. 110.) For the reasons discussed below, Defendants' Motion is GRANTED in its entirety.

I. BACKGROUND

The facts below are taken from the parties' Rule 56.1 statements, affidavits, declarations, and exhibits, and are not in dispute except where so noted. All rational inferences are drawn in Plaintiff's favor.

A. Placement of Plaintiff on Suicide Watch

On June 1, 2013, Plaintiff was an incarcerated inmate at Rockland County Correctional Facility ("RCCF"). (Defendant's Rule 56.1 Statement ("Def. 56.1"), ¶ 2, ECF No. 110-27.) At around 3:05 pm, Plaintiff was in his cell, where he was observed upset and crying, with tears going down his cheeks. (Id. ¶ 4.)¹ RCCF Officer Puccio observed Plaintiff in this distressed and tearful condition and decided to place him on "suicide watch." (Id. ¶¶ 5-6; Defendants' Memorandum in Support of Summary Judgment ("Def. Mem."), Ex. D, ECF No. 110-10.).

Subsequently, Officer Puccio escorted Plaintiff to the Intake Booking area and ordered him to change into suicide watch apparel, pursuant to RCCF Policy. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 6; Def. Mem., Ex D; Surveillance Video, Ex. O, ECF No. 110-24.) Plaintiff, however, refused Officer Puccio's order to change into suicide watch apparel. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 7; Def. Mem., Ex D.) Plaintiff claims that he refused the orders because he told Officer Puccio that he was okay and that he did not want to hurt himself. (10/14/14 Letter.) ("I simply asked him if I can talk to the doctor or the chaplain so I wouldn't have to go on suicide so they can know that I don't want to hurt myself."). Plaintiff also claims that the reason he did not want to be placed on suicide watch was because he believed he would be placed in a very cold location and would get sick. (See id. ) ("...its very cold I mean very very cold on top of that I get sick very easy when I get to[o] cold[.] I start shaking then I'll end up at a hospital, so that's what I was trying to prevent.")

Nevertheless, after Plaintiff refused multiple orders from Officer Puccio, St. Mueller arrived to assist Officer Puccio (Def. Mem. Ex. D.)² When St. Mueller arrived, he also told Plaintiff to change apparel from the orange suit he was wearing to the blue suit that inmates are supposed to wear when on suicide watch. (Def. 56.1 ¶¶ 9-10; Def. Mem., Ex D.) Plaintiff continued refusing to change and became increasingly worked up. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 16; 8/14/14 Letter) ("...yes I did ask[ ] him a couple of times again to talk to the doctor and the chaplain maybe that's the reason he got so mad..."). Plaintiff claims that at this point Sergeant Mueller started cursing him out, told him to "shut the fuck up" and "spit on [his] face." (8/14/14 Letter.) Defendants claim that it was only Plaintiff who "became increasingly demonstrative and animated," whilst continually refusing to change into the suicide watch apparel. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 16.)

Subsequently, St. Mueller escorted Plaintiff to the shower area adjoining the intake area. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 17; Pl. Dep. 46: 9-14; Ex. O.) There, St. Mueller applied a burst of Oleoresin Capsicum ("OC" or "pepper") spray on Plaintiff. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 18; AC Attachment A; 10/14/14 Letter.) While Plaintiff claims that he subjectively thought St. Mueller was going to hit Plaintiff, the undisputed facts and surveillance footage reflect that both parties become increasingly agitated, but neither party became violent. (See 8/14/14 Letter; Surveillance Video, Ex. O.)

The parties disagree as to how much pepper spray St. Mueller emitted. Defendants claim that St. Mueller used the paper spray for a "short, one second burst," whereas Plaintiff contends that St. Mueller sprayed so much spray "to the point that everyone [was] [coughing] so much" and three other officers had to leave the room. (See 10/14/14 Letter; Ex. O).³ Defendants claim that the surveillance video demonstrates that "[n]o staff demonstrated adverse reactions." (Def. 56.1 ¶ 19.)

After St. Mueller sprayed Plaintiff with the pepper spray, Plaintiff showered, put on fresh clothes, and was immediately escorted to the medical facility to irrigate his eyes. (Def. 56.1 ¶¶ 21-23; Pl. Dep. 55:17-18.) Plaintiff admits that he did not require any physical assistance to walk to the Nurse's office, but also claims that he could not open his eyes and was suffering from the immense pain. (Def. 56.1 ¶¶ 23; Pl. Dep. 56:2-3, 64:14-20.) ("I couldn't open my eyes. My eyes was watering and tears all over and it was red, it was hurt – it was hurting. And my head was also – I felt like my head was going to blow. My head hurt a lot.") The Nurse then provided Plaintiff with several fluids with which to rinse his eyes that Plaintiff then used to thoroughly rinse and irrigate his eyes. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 24; Pl. Dep. at 69-73.) Plaintiff then left the Nurse's office and was taken to a Psychiatrist. (Pl. Dep. 79:1-6.) The Psychiatrist examined Plaintiff and wrote a letter instructing Plaintiff to be taken "off suicide watch." (See Ex. D.)

Soon thereafter, Plaintiff entered a guilty plea and accepted 15 days of "lock-in" as a penalty for refusing to comply with corrections officer orders, and he was placed in Administrative Segregation for his refusal to comply with correctional officer orders. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 25; Ex D.) Plaintiff claims that before he was placed in this segregation, Defendants wrongfully took away all his legal papers, his bible, his clothes, all the food he had brought with him (10/14/14 Letter.) ("they took everything I had owned and put it in the trash.") At some point on June 1, 2013, St. Mueller properly filled out an OC Report, detailing the incident and his use of OC spray on Plaintiff. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 26; Ex. D.)

B. Plaintiff's Attempt to File a Grievance

About five months later, on November 15, 2013, Plaintiff submitted a grievance in connection with the June 1, 2013 pepper spray incident, in which Plaintiff claimed to have suffered injuries to his eyes, including losing sight in his right eye, getting blurry vision in his left eye, and having to get scheduled for a surgery as a result of exposure to the spray. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 27; Ex. D.).⁴ But the same day that Plaintiff filed this grievance, Lt. John Byran, the Grievance Coordinator at RCCF, denied Plaintiff's application. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 28; Ex. D.).

Plaintiff appealed the initial determination of the Grievance Coordinator to the Chief Administrative Officer. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 29; Ex. D.). Subsequently, on November 25, 2013, the Chief of Correction, Anthony Volpe, rendered a decision, in which he denied Plaintiff's Grievance. (Def. 56.1 ¶¶ 30-31; Ex. D.). Plaintiff then appealed this decision to the Citizen's Policy and Complaint Review Council, and the appeal was sent to the Council on November 29, 2013. (Def. 56.1 ¶¶ 33-34; Ex. D.). On February 19, 2014, the Citizen's Policy and Complaint Review Council rendered a final decision, sustaining the action taken by the facility administration. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 35; Ex. D.).

C. Plaintiff's Chronic Eye Conditions and Medical History

Plaintiff has a documented history of chronic inflammatory changes in his peripheral cornea that date back to 2004. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 35; Ex. F, L.). This history reflects that Plaintiff had chronic conjunctivitis

with corneal changes, and an assessment and plan of corneal superficial vascularization. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 37; Ex. F.) On March 3, 2004, Plaintiff was treated at New York Presbyterian Hospital for an evaluation of superficial corneal vascularization and was noted with vision of 20/25, 20/30 with superficial pannus and anterior corneal inflammation on examination, with an assessment of corneal inflammation/pannus/pigmentation. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 38; Ex. F.)

Although he was advised to follow up in two months, Plaintiff next went to New York Presbyterian Hospital on March 31, 2005 with complaints of itchiness and inflammation and increased pannus. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 44; Ex. F.) During that visit, the doctor noted that Plaintiff had superficial pannus and corneal thinning

. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 45; Ex. F.)

On September 1, 2005, Plaintiff was again treated at New York Presbyterian and had a vision of 20/25 and pannus. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 46; Ex. F.) Subsequently, on January 19, 2006, Plaintiff was again treated at New York Presbyterian Hospital and this time was noted with having pannus in both eyes, being "inactive," and was...