Daniels v. Carter
| Decision Date | 22 November 2022 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action 21 Civ. 8985 (AT) (SLC) |
| Parties | WILLIAM DANIELS, Plaintiff, v. NYC/DOC/VCBC WARDEN CARTER, NYC/DOC/VCBC HOUSING UNIT 3-AA CAPTAIN GUERRA, NYC/DOC/VCBC FACILITY STOREHOUSE CAPTAIN HORTON, NYC/DOC/VCBC INTAKE SUPERVISOR JERMAINE SLACK #1849, NYC/DOC/VCBC INTAKE CAPTAIN CARLO CIQUERO #1830, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Pro se Plaintiff William Daniels (“Daniels”), a pretrial detainee at the Vernon C. Bain Center at Rikers Island (“VCBC”), alleges that Defendants[1]violated his constitutional rights by depriving him of toilet paper, soap, and toothbrushes for about three days and depriving him of food and water for about eight hours. (ECF Nos. 3 (the “Complaint”); 16 (the “Amended Complaint”)). Defendants now move, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) (“PLRA”), to dismiss the Amended Complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and failure to state a claim. (ECF Nos. 19 (the “Motion”); 21 at 10-11).
For the reasons set forth below, I respectfully recommend that the Motion be GRANTED and that this action be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
The Court summarizes the factual allegations in the Amended Complaint, which the Court accepts as true for purposes of the Motion. See N.J. Carpenters Health Fund v. Royal Bank of Scot. Grp., PLC, 709 F.3d 109, 119-20 (2d Cir. 2013); see also Corbett v. City of N.Y., No. 15 Civ. 09214 (GHW), 2016 WL 7429447, at *2-3 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 22, 2016).[2]In addition, because Daniels is pro se, the Court may consider and include in this summary “factual allegations contained in [his] opposition papers and other court filings.” Rodriguez v. Rodriguez, No. 10 Civ. 891 (LGS), 2013 WL 4779639, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 8, 2013); see Davila v. Lang, 343 F.Supp.3d 254, 267 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (“Because [Plaintiff] is proceeding pro se, the Court may consider new facts raised in opposition papers to the extent that they are consistent with the complaint, treating the new factual allegations as amending the original complaint.”); Sommersett v. City of New York, No. 09 Civ. 5916 (LTS) (KNF), 2011 WL 2565301, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. June 28, 2011) () (quoting Milano v. Astrue, No. 05 Civ. 6527 (KMW) (DF), 2007 WL 2668511, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 7, 2007)).
On October 5, 2021, in Unit 3-AA at VCBC, Daniels “was without toilet paper . . . [,] soap . . . [, and] toothbrushes . . . for ap[p]rox[imately] three days.” (ECF No. 16 at 4). Carter and Guerra “knew or should have known of [Daniels'] dire living conditions for what amounted to three whole days[.]” (Id.) “On the fourth day this issue was brought up with the housing area captain[,]” Guerra, (ECF No. 25 at 1), who “pressed her emergency security alarm,” leading to Daniels and other inmates in Unit 3-AA “being put into hand[] restraint[s] and taken to the facility intake holding cell.” (ECF No. 16 at 5). In the holding cell, the “water was turned off, toilets were not flushable, [and] there was no food or water provided for ap[p]rox[imately] eight hours.” (Id.) As a result of these conditions, Daniels suffered “physical and psychological abuse[,]” including “fatigue[,] naus[e]a, headaches, anxiety, depression, [and] fear of additional reprisals.” (Id.)
Daniels “affirm[ed] that [he is] aware of the DOCCS grievance procedure as detailed in the Department's Inmate Rule Book[,]” and has previously filed grievances about other matters. (ECF No. 25 at 2-3 (the “Prior Grievances”)). Daniels did not receive responses to the Prior Grievances, however, which he contends “evidences the continued dysfunction of the grievance process at [VCBC].” (Id. at 3). He contends that “the lack of action on behalf of [Carter] has made [his] ability to exhaust [his] administrative remedies impossible[.]” (Id. at 4).
In a complaint delivered “to prison authorities for mailing” on October 12, 2021, another inmate named Michael Lee (“Lee”) asserted that the events of October 5, 2021 violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights of 28 VCBC inmates, including himself and Daniels, and requested compensatory damages of $1,500 and punitive damages of $5,000 per plaintiff. (ECF No. 3 at 1, 4-5, 7, 10). Named as Defendants were Carter, Guerra, and Horton, as well as Captain “John Doe.” (ECF No. 3 at 1, 3). The Complaint also sought an order “deterring [Defendants] from using corporal punishment as a means of punishment on Plaintiffs . . . [,]” and requiring that Defendants provide the plaintiffs with “[t]he [h]yg[i]ene material[s] that the N.Y. City Department of Correction [(‘DOC')] policies obligate each facility to provide.” (ECF No. 3 at 6).
On November 1, 2021, the Honorable Laura Taylor Swain severed the claims of all plaintiffs listed in the Complaint, including Daniels, and ordered each action be docketed as a separate civil action. (ECF No. 1). On December 9, 2021, the Honorable Analisa Torres, requested Carter, Horton, and Guerra to waive service, directed the New York City Law Department, which represents the DOC to ascertain and provide to Daniels the identity and badge number of “Captain John Doe,”[3]and within 30 days of receiving that information, directed Daniels to file “an amended complaint naming the newly identified individual as a defendant.” (ECF No. 7 at 12). On January 4, 2022, Carter, Guerra, and Horton returned executed waivers of service. (ECF No. 12). On February 4, 2022, Defendants served Daniels with a letter identifying the names of the three captains who supervised VCBC's intake procedures on October 5, 2021. (ECF No. 15 at 1). In the Amended Complaint, which Daniels delivered to prison authorities for mailing on February 10, 2022, Daniels substituted Slack and Ciquero for “Captain John Doe,” and asserted Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment claims based on the deprivation of toiletries, food, and water on October 5, 2021. (Compare ECF No. 16 at 3-5 with ECF No. 3 at 3).
On March 7, 2022, Defendants filed the Motion, with a notice pursuant to Local Rule 12.1 warning Daniels that the Court might treat the Motion as one for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, and that his failure to respond with “sworn affidavits and other papers as required by Rule 56(e)” could result in dismissal of the Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 20). On April 15, 2022, Daniels filed a letter in opposition to the Motion (ECF No. 25), and on April 29, 2022, Defendants filed a reply. (ECF No. 26). Judge Torres referred the Motion for this Report and Recommendation. (ECF No. 24).
In analyzing a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court must assess whether the complaint “contain[s] sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (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.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).
To survive a motion to dismiss, “the plaintiff must provide the grounds upon which his claim rests through factual allegations sufficient ‘to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.'” ATSI Commc'ns, Inc. v. Shaar Fund, Ltd., 493 F.3d 87, 98 (2d Cir. 2007) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). In evaluating a motion to dismiss, the Court “accept[s] all facts alleged in the complaint as true and draw[s] all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor.” Sanderson v. Leg Apparel LLC, No. 19 Civ. 8423 (GHW), 2020 WL 7342742, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 14, 2020) (citing Burch v. Pioneer Credit Recovery, Inc., 551 F.3d 122, 124 (2d Cir. 2008) (per curiam)). The Court is “‘not required to credit conclusory allegations or legal conclusions couched as factual allegations.'” Sanderson, 2020 WL 7342742, at *3 (quoting Rothstein v. UBS AG, 708 F.3d 82, 94 (2d Cir. 2013)). “[A] complaint that offers ‘labels and conclusions' or ‘naked assertion[s]' without ‘further factual enhancement' will not survive a motion to dismiss.” Sanderson, 2020 WL 7342742, at *3 (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678). “‘Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.'” Sanderson, 2020 WL 7342742, at *3 (quoting DeJesus v. HF Mgmt. Servs., LLC, 726 F.3d 85, 87-88 (2d. Cir. 2013)). For purposes of Rule 12(b)(6), “the complaint is deemed to include any written instrument attached to it as an exhibit or any statements or documents incorporated in it by reference.” Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc., 282 F.3d 147, 152 (2d Cir. 2002).
In deciding a motion to dismiss, “the submissions of a pro se litigant must be construed liberally and interpreted ‘to raise the strongest arguments that they suggest.'” Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474 (2d Cir. 2006) (quoting Pabon v. Wright, 459 F.3d 241, 248 (2d Cir. 2006)). Nonetheless, “a pro se plaintiff must still plead enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Gottesfeld v Anderson, No. 18 Civ. 10836 (PGG), 2020 WL 1082590, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 6, 2020) (citing Hill v. Curcione, 657 F.3d 116, 122 (2d Cir. 2011)). Despite the...
To continue reading
Request your trial