Bradshaw v. Uhler
| Docket Number | 9:21-CV-0901 (DNH/ML) |
| Decision Date | 20 July 2023 |
| Parties | JAY BRADSHAW, Plaintiff, v. UHLER, Superintendent Upstate Corr. Facility; FENNESSY, Superintendent, Mid-State Corr. Facility; S. DOMINIC, Upstate Corr. Facility; R. CANTWELL, Comm'r Hearing Officer, Upstate Corr. Facility; J. TATRO, Lieutenant, Upstate Corr. Facility; WOODRUFF, Superintendent for Security, Upstate Corr. Facility; R. BARBOSA, CHO, Mid-State Corr. Facility; HOLLENBECK, Upstate Corr. Facility; LAMICA, Upstate Corr. Facility; GRAVELL, Mental Health Therapist, Upstate Corr. Facility, formerly known as Gravlin; VENETTOZZI, Director of Special Housing Unit; JENNIFER WALDRON, Mental Health Unit Chief, Upstate Corr. Facility; and BRIAN LOWNSBURY, Corrections Officer, Upstate Corr. Facility, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York |
APPEARANCES:
JAY BRADSHAW Pro Se Plaintiff Great Meadow Correctional Facility
LETITIA A. JAMES Attorney General for the State of New York Counsel for Defendant The Capitol
OF COUNSEL:
MARK MITCHELL, ESQ. Assistant Attorney General
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Currently before the Court, in this civil rights action filed by Jay Bradshaw (“Plaintiff”) against Uhler, Fennessy S. Dominic, R. Cantwell, J. Tatro, Woodruff, R. Barbosa Hollenbeck, Lamica, Gravell, Venettozzi, Jennifer Waldron, and Brian Lownsbury (collectively “Defendants”), is (1) Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment, and (2) Defendants' motion for summary judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 and to revoke Plaintiff's IFP status. (Dkt. Nos. 119, 120.) For the reasons set forth below, I recommend that (1) Plaintiff's motion be denied, and (2) Defendants' motion be granted in part and denied in part.
On or about August 11, 2021, Plaintiff Jay Bradshaw (“Plaintiff”) commenced this pro se action by filing a civil rights complaint against numerous state employees at various correctional facilities pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, together with an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and a motion for preliminary injunctive relief. (Dkt. Nos. 1, 2, 3.) By order dated September 27, 2021, United States District Judge David N. Hurd granted Plaintiff's IFP application in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), and, following a review of the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), dismissed some of Plaintiff's claims, transferred some of Plaintiff's claims to the Western District of New York, terminated some of the defendants, and directed service and a response to the claims against the named defendants that survived sua sponte review. (Dkt. No. 5.)
Prior to commencing this action, Plaintiff had filed at least twenty-two other civil actions in the district courts in the Second Circuit since 2008. (Dkt. No. 5 at 3.) In at least four of those actions, Plaintiff acquired “strikes” as defined in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). (Id. at 4 n.5.) Notwithstanding this determination, Plaintiff's IFP application was granted because the Court found that the allegations in the Complaint were sufficient to plausibly suggest that Plaintiff “was ‘under imminent danger of serious physical injury' when he signed his complaint on August 1, 2021.” (Id. at 7.) The Court, however, noted that “this is a preliminary finding which defendants are entitled to challenge or refute in future filings.” (Id. [].)
On March 2, 2022, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. (Dkt. No. 43.)
Generally, Plaintiff's Amended Complaint alleges that various corrections officials at Upstate Correctional Facility (“Upstate”) and Mid-State Correctional Facility (“Mid-State”) violated Plaintiff's civil rights related primarily to misbehavior reports and corresponding disciplinary determinations issued between August 2018 and December 2021. (See generally Dkt. No. 43, Dkt. No. 48 at 6-13.) More specifically, the Amended Complaint alleges that between August 2, 2018, and December 22, 2021, Plaintiff was issued thirty-seven misbehavior reports during his incarceration at Upstate and Mid-State. (See generally Dkt. No. 43, Dkt. No. 48 at 6-13.) When Plaintiff received the first misbehavior report at issue in this action, he had been confined in a Special Housing Unit (“SHU”) cell for almost three-hundred consecutive days as a result of disciplinary determinations at another DOCCS facility. (See generally Dkt. No. 43, Dkt. No. 48 at 6-13.) As a result of guilty determinations at disciplinary hearings related to some of the misbehavior reports at issue in this action, Plaintiff is scheduled to remain in the SHU until at least September 14, 2023. (See generally Dkt. No. 43, Dkt. No. 48 at 6-13.) In addition, following Plaintiff's release from the SHU, he is scheduled to serve more than four years of keeplock confinement as a result of several other of the misbehavior reports at issue in this action. (See generally Dkt. No. 43, Dkt. No. 48 at 6-13.)
By order dated April 20, 2022, following a review of the Amended Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), Judge Hurd dismissed some of Plaintiff's claims, directed the Clerk of the Court to add certain new defendants to the docket, directed that defendant “Jane Doe” be terminated, directed service of the Amended Complaint on the new defendants, and directed that a response be filed for the claims against the named defendants that survived sua sponte review. (Dkt. No. 48.) More specifically, Judge Hurd ordered that the following six claims survived sua sponte review: (1) Plaintiff's First Amendment retaliation claim against Defendant Lamica; (2) Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment excessive force claims against Defendants Hollenbeck and Lamica; (3) Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claim based on the denial of meals against Defendant Hollenbeck; (4) Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment medical indifference claims against Defendants Gravell and Waldron; (5) Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment excessive SHU confinement claims against Defendants Dominic, Uhler, Cantwell, Tatro, Woodruff, Barbosa, Fennessy, and Venettozzi; and (6) Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment disciplinary due process claims against Defendants Uhler, Lownsbury, Cantwell, Tatro, and Venettozzi arising out of the disciplinary determinations associated with the September 2018 Disciplinary Hearing,[1] the January 2019 Disciplinary Hearing,[2] and/or the May 2021 Disciplinary Hearing.[3] (Id.)
On January 24, 2022, Judge Hurd denied Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction. (Dkt. No. 31.)
On January 23, 2023, Plaintiff filed a partial motion for summary judgment on his excessive SHU confinement and due process claims. (Dkt. No. 119.) On January 27, 2023, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment and to revoke Plaintiff's IFP status. (Dkt. No. 120.) Defendants opposed Plaintiff's partial motion for summary judgment. (Dkt. No. 131.) Plaintiff opposed Defendants' motion for summary judgment and to revoke his IFP status. (Dkt. No. 137.)
Generally, in support of his motion for partial summary judgment, Plaintiff asserts the following two arguments: (1) he was denied due process at his disciplinary hearings; and (2) his continuous confinement in the SHU violated his Eighth Amendment right. (See generally Dkt. No. 119.)
More specifically, with respect to his first argument, Plaintiff argues that at his October 2018 disciplinary hearing (1) Defendant Lownsbury failed to (a) provide Plaintiff with the DOCCS directive for preserving evidence and for testing a substance for urine, (b) submit Plaintiff's request for video of the incident, and (c) assist Plaintiff in securing the testimony of C.O. Jeffrey as a witness, (2) Defendant Cantwell conducted the disciplinary hearing in Plaintiff's absence without justification and imposed a 250 day SHU penalty despite his knowledge that Plaintiff was already serving a 120 day SHU sanction, and (3) Defendants Woodruff and Venettozzi failed to correct the due process violations and instead, affirmed the 250 day SHU sanction. (Dkt. No. 119 at 5.) In addition, Plaintiff argues that with respect to the January 2019 Disciplinary Hearing, Defendant Trato allegedly relied on the officers' report and video of the incident, but the video squarely contradicts the officers' report and thus, there was no evidence to properly rely on when imposing a sentence of 265 days in the SHU. (Id.) With respect to the May 2021 Disciplinary Hearing, Plaintiff argues that (1) Defendant Cantwell improperly conduced the hearing without Plaintiff present and imposed a SHU sanction for offenses that were not punishable by a SHU sanction, and (2) Defendants Uhler and Rodriguez affirmed Defendant Cantwell's improper SHU sanction. (Id. at 6.)
With respect to his second argument, Plaintiff asserts that he has been confined to the SHU since January 10, 2018, and none of the offenses for which he received a SHU sanction posed an unreasonable and ongoing threat to security and safety and thus were grossly disproportionate to the reason for isolation. (Id. at 6-7.)
Generally in support of their motion for summary judgment and to revoke Plaintiff's IFP status, Defendants assert the following six arguments: (1) Plaintiff's IFP status should be revoked because he did not face imminent danger...
To continue reading
Request your trial