Clark v. Gardner, 9:17-CV-0366.
| Decision Date | 22 June 2017 |
| Docket Number | 9:17-CV-0366. |
| Parties | Jamel CLARK, also known as Jahmel Clark, Plaintiff, v. Gerald GARDNER, Lt. of Corrections Officers; Shawangunk Correctional Facility, Joseph Smith, Superintendent; Shawangunk Correctional Facility, Lt. Palen, Lt. of Corrections Officers; Shawangunk Correctional Facility, Farra, Plant Superintendent of Facility Maintenance; Shawangunk Correctional Facility, Anthony Annucci, Commissioner of the New York State Dept. of Corrections, D. Venettozi, Director of Special Housing and Inmate Disciplinary Program, Dave Degraff, Corrections Officer; Shawangunk Correctional Facility, Mets, Corrections Officer; Shawangunk Correctional Facility, Caramonos, Corrections Officer; Shawangunk Correctional Facility, McElroy, Corrections Officer; Shawangunk Correctional Facility, Doctor Lee, Facility Health Care Director; Shawangunk Correctional Facility, Sergeant Harrison, Shawangunk Correctional Facility, and Pingotti, D.S.S., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York |
JAMEL CLARK, 99–A–0475, Plaintiff, pro se, Attica Correctional Facility, Box 149, Attica, NY 14011
DECISION and ORDER
This is an initial review of a civil rights complaint brought pro se by plaintiff Jamel Clark ("Clark" or "plaintiff"). Dkt. No. 1 ("Compl.").1 Plaintiff, who is presently confined in the custody of the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision ("DOCCS") at Attica Correctional Facility, has not paid the filing fee for this action and seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. No. 6 ("IFP Application"). Plaintiff also seeks appointment of pro bono counsel to represent him in this action. Dkt. No. 4.
" 28 U.S.C. § 1915 permits an indigent litigant to commence an action in a federal court without prepayment of the filing fee that would ordinarily be charged." Cash v. Bernstein , No. 09-CV-1922, 2010 WL 5185047, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 26, 2010).2 "Although an indigent, incarcerated individual need not prepay the filing fee at the time of filing, he must subsequently pay the fee, to the extent he is able to do so, through periodic withdrawals from his inmate accounts." Id. ().
Clark's submissions demonstrate economic need. Plaintiff has also filed the inmate authorization required in the Northern District of New York. Dkt. No. 7. As a result, plaintiff's IFP application will be granted.
In light of the fact that Clark was granted leave to commence this action in forma pauperis, and because he seeks relief from officers and employees of a governmental entity, the sufficiency of the allegations set forth in his complaint must be considered in light of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
Section 1915(e)(2) directs that, when a plaintiff seeks to proceed in forma pauperis, "the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that— ... (B) the action ... (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
Similarly, Section 1915A directs that a court must review any "complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity" and must "identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint (i) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (ii) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief." 28 U.S.C. § 1915A ; see also Abbas v. Dixon , 480 F.3d 636, 639 (2d Cir. 2007) ().
Thus, although the court has the duty to show liberality toward pro se litigants, see Nance v. Kelly , 912 F.2d 605, 606 (2d Cir. 1990) (per curiam), and should exercise "extreme caution ... in ordering sua sponte dismissal of a pro se complaint before the adverse party has been served and both parties (but particularly the plaintiff) have had an opportunity to respond," Anderson v. Coughlin , 700 F.2d 37, 41 (2d Cir. 1983) (internal citations omitted), the court also has a responsibility to determine whether plaintiff may properly proceed with this action.
A court should not dismiss a complaint if the plaintiff has stated "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). Although the court should construe the factual allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, "the tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions." Id. "Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Id. (citing Twombly , 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 ). Thus, "where the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged—but it has not ‘show[n]’—‘that the pleader is entitled to relief.’ " Id. at 679, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) ).
Clark asserts allegations of wrongdoing arising out of his confinement at Shawangunk Correctional Facility ("Shawangunk C.F.") in 2014. See generally Compl. The following facts are set forth as alleged by plaintiff in the complaint.
On approximately July 24, 2014, while Clark was temporarily confined at Attica C.F. for a court appearance, his cell at Shawangunk C.F. was searched. Compl. at 11. Various items of contraband were allegedly recovered during the search, along with several other unauthorized items. Id. Upon his return to Shawangunk C.F. on August 5, 2014, plaintiff was served with the inmate misbehavior report ("IMR") issued regarding the cell search. Id. at 12.
On August 6, 2014, a disciplinary hearing on this charge was conducted by Lt. Gardner. Compl. at 13. Clark's requests for an employee assistant and for production of relevant documents and reports were denied. Id. at 14. Plaintiff requested, among other things, a copy of DOCCS Directive 4934, setting forth the procedures to be followed when an inmate is not able to assume immediate responsibility for his property. Id. at 14–15. Plaintiff's request to call inmate Benjamin as a witness on his behalf was also denied. Id. at 15. Inmate Benjamin had told plaintiff that he observed officers placing a t.v. set and a lamp in plaintiff's cell prior to the July 24, 2014 cell search. Id. at 16.
At the conclusion of the hearing, Lt. Gardner found Clark guilty of four of the five rule violations with which he had been charged. Compl. at 16. Plaintiff was sanctioned with sixty days' confinement in the special housing unit ("SHU") and loss of privileges, loss of honor visiting privileges for four months, loss of television in his cell for one year, and six months loss of good time credits. Id. During his SHU confinement, plaintiff was harassed and threatened by C.O. Dave DeGraff and C.O. McElroy. Id. at 16–17.
The disciplinary determinations were affirmed on administrative appeal by Supt. Smith. Compl. at 17. After speaking with a member of the mental health staff regarding his hearing, Clark was informed by Supt. Smith that the disciplinary determination was being reviewed by DOCCS's Central Office. Id.
On September 4, 2014, Clark was released from SHU. Compl. at 17. Upon leaving the SHU, C.O. McElroy stated: "You'll get what's coming to you when you get to the Block, since you like writing grievances about how we run our S.H.U. you piece of shit." Id. at 17–18.
Upon his return to his housing unit (the "close supervision unit"), Clark was violently assaulted by a group of currently unknown individuals. Compl. at 18. Plaintiff sustained serious injuries, including a concussion, the loss of three front teeth, and a separated shoulder. Id. At the time of this assault, C.O. Mets was the supervising officer on the unit. Id. Plaintiff was transported to an outside hospital for medical evaluation and treatment of his injuries. Id. at 19. Upon his return to Shawangunk C.F., plaintiff was confined in the facility hospital. Id. at 19–20. The property in plaintiff's cell was not properly inventoried and secured during this period. Id.
On September 7, 2014, C.O. Algarin (not a defendant) allegedly found a marijuana cigarette in Clark's cell while looking for plaintiff's razor. Compl. at 20. C.O. Algarin issued an IMR charging plaintiff with possession of drugs. Id. Shortly after receiving the IMR and being informed that a Tier III disciplinary hearing would be held upon his release from the facility hospital, plaintiff attempted suicide. Id. Upon his release from the hospital, plaintiff was sent to Downstate Correctional Facility and admitted to the "Office of Mental Health Suicide Prevention Crisis Observation and Treatment Unit." Id. at 21.
On September 11, 2014, Clark was returned to Shawangunk C.F. and confined in the SHU. Compl. at 21. C.O. Caramonos did not properly inspect and inventory the cell to which plaintiff was assigned. Id.
On September 15, 2014, Clark's disciplinary hearing on the September 7, 2014 IMR began with Lt. Gardner serving as the hearing officer. Compl. at 21–22. Lt. Gardner denied plaintiff's request for an employee assistant and deprived him of his right to call witnesses and present a defense. Id. at 22–23. Plaintiff was found guilty and sanctioned...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Perez v. Town of N. Providence
-
Girard v. Cuttle
...to his safety actually existed and that the offending defendant knew of and consciously disregarded that risk.'" Clark v. Gardner, 256 F. Supp. 3d 154, 167 (N.D.N.Y. 2017). To establish this claim, then, Plaintiff must show both that he was incarcerated under conditions posing a substantial......
-
Brown v. New York
...does not allege what each Defendant did or did not do with their alleged knowledge of the cold conditions. See Clark v. Gardner, 256 F. Supp. 3d 154, 168(N.D.N.Y. 2017) ("[T]he complaint does not allege any facts which even suggest that any of these defendants were aware of the temperature ......
-
Peterson v. Lindstrand
... ... employee assistant. Clark v. Gardner , 256 F.Supp.3d ... 154, 170 (N.D.N.Y. 2017) ... “To ... ...