Edwards v. Horn
| Decision Date | 07 March 2012 |
| Docket Number | No. 10 Civ. 6194 (RJS)(JLC),10 Civ. 6194 (RJS)(JLC) |
| Parties | WILLIAM EDWARDS, Plaintiff, v. MARTIN HORN, et al, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Pro se Plaintiff William Edwards brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986, alleging that at various times, Defendants violated his constitutional rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments during his incarceration at five different facilities on Rikers Island. By Order dated September 1, 2010, this matter was referred to the Honorable James L. Cott, Magistrate Judge. On April 4, 2011, Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On March 3, 2011, Judge Cott set a deadline of March 4, 2011 for Plaintiff to submit an opposition to Defendants' motion. Although Judge Cott thrice extended this deadline - on May 18, 2011, June 8, 2011, and June 29, 2011 - Plaintiff never submitted an opposition. Accordingly, Judge Cott properly considered Defendants' motion fully submitted.
On February 14, 2012, Judge Cott issued the attached forty-six page Report and Recommendation (the "Report"), recommending that the motion to dismiss be granted except as to Plaintiff's retaliatory termination claim against Defendant Rosa to the extent that Plaintiff seeks nominal or punitive damages. In the Report, Judge Cott advised the parties that failure to file timely objections to the Report would constitute a waiver of those objections. See 28 U.S.C.§ 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). No party has filed objections to the Report, and the time to do so has expired. Cf. Frank v. Johnson, 968 F.2d 298 (2d Cir. 1993).
When no objections to a report and recommendation are made, the Court may adopt the report if there is no clear error on the face of the record. Adee Motor Cars, LLC v. Amato, 388 F. Supp. 2d 250, 253 (S.D.N.Y. 2005); La Torres v. Walker, 216 F. Supp. 2d 157, 159 (S.D.N.Y. 2000). After reviewing the record, the Court finds that Judge Cott's well-reasoned and careful Report is not facially erroneous. Accordingly, the Court adopts the Report in its entirety and, for the reasons set forth therein, grants Defendants' motion to dismiss as to all but one of Plaintiff s claims. The court denies the motion as to Plaintiff's retaliatory termination claim against Defendant Rosa, and only to the extent that Plaintiff seeks nominal or punitive damages against her. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion located at Doc. No. 88.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 7, 2012
New York, New York
___________
RICHARD J. SULLIVAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
A copy of this Order has been mailed to:
v.
MARTIN HORN, et al, Defendants.
Plaintiff William Edwards, proceeding pro se, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986 alleging that Defendants violated his constitutional rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments during his incarceration in various facilities on Rikers Island. Edwards also alleges that he was discriminated against in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Defendants move to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For the reasons discussed below, I recommend that the motion to dismiss be granted except as to Edwards' retaliatory termination claim against Defendant Rosa.
The following facts are taken from the Complaint and are accepted as true for purposes of this motion. . Edwards brings this suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986 and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., against 44 current and former NewYork City employees and two John Doe Defendants: Commissioner Martin Horn, Warden Bailey, Warden J. Davis, Warden E. Duffy, Warden Michael Hourihan, Warden Riordan, Warden Robert Shaw, Correctional Officer ("C.O.") Dinolfo, C.O. Grima, C.O. Hernandez, C.O. Holmes, C.O. Lagos, C.O. Lewis, C.O. Maynard, C.O. Morales, C.O. Noon, C.O. Reyes, C.O. Richardson, C.O. Rosa, C.O. Smalls, C.O. Smith, C.O. Sumpter, Captain Alleyve, Captain Bethacourt, Captain Calle, Captain G. Davis, Captain Polak, Marybeth Campfield, Ms. Carrera, Mrs. M. Cattafesta, Mr. K. Guerrant, Cook Hannah, Deputy Hill, Florence Hunter, Ms. Jenkins, Ms. K. Johnson1, Ms. G. Lee, Ms. P. Mimms, Mr. R. Mulvena, Ms. B. Musmacher, Ms. R. Padmore, Karen Powell, James Robinson, and Ms. Steven (together, "Defendants"). (See Compl. at 1-5).2
Edwards alleges that Defendants deprived him of his constitutional rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments during his incarceration at several facilities on Rikers Island: the Anna M. Kross Center ("AMKC"), the Eric M. Taylor Center ("EMTC"), the George Motchan Detention Center ("GMDC"), the George R. Vierno Center ("GRVC"), and the Robert N. Davoren Complex ("RNDC"). At the time he filed his Complaint, Edwards was an inmate at the Clinton Correctional Facility, and he is currently on parole. (See Letter, dated Dec. 11, 2011 (Dkt. No. 135)).
Throughout his roughly 100 paragraph, single-spaced, 25-page Complaint, Edwards does not present his allegations by cause of action, nor does he clearly articulate exactly what causesof action he is asserting, as many allegations appear to overlap and lack clarity.3 Several of Edwards' allegations deal with Defendants' actions in relation to a separate lawsuit Edwards brought in the Northern District of New York, Edwards v. Selsky, No. 04 Civ. 493 (FJS) (DRH), 2008 WL 190385 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 22, 2008) (), which was dismissed for failure to prosecute. The Court has made every effort to identify and address all possible claims asserted in the Complaint.4 The Court is able to identify 12 potential causes of action spanning separate dates from July 25, 2007 to April 5, 2010. Specifically, Edwards asserts the following claims: (1) verbal harassment; (2) deprivation of access to free telephone calls; (3) deprivation of access to legal services; (4) mail tampering; (5) denial of required food portions; (6) unconstitutional strip search; (7) violation of due process rights within the prison's disciplinary and grievance system; (8) excessive force and denial of medical treatment; (9) deprivation of access to the prison's grievance system; (10) retaliation; (11) conspiracy; and (12) disability discrimination under the ADA. Edwards seeks $75,000,000 in damages, attorneys' fees, a reimbursement of penalties incurred due to two allegedly false infractions, injunctive relief in the form of expunging those false infractions, injunctive relief terminating Defendants from their positions in the New York City Department of Correction ("DOC") and permanentlyenjoining them from city, state, or federal employment, and a permanent restraining order to prevent Defendants from committing any future similar violations. (Compl. ¶ V). Edwards does not present these allegations in a narrative fashion, but instead describes dozens of grievance letters that he has submitted to DOC staff at the various Rikers Island facilities over the course of nearly three years. To avoid repetition, the Court will describe the factual background relating to Edwards' specific allegations in the context of the relevant legal discussion below.
Edwards filed the Complaint on August 18, 2010. (Dkt. No. 2). On October 29, 2010, the United States Marshals executed service of the Summons and Complaint on 32 of the 44 named defendants.5 Over the course of the next several months, with the assistance of the Office of Corporation Counsel, the United States Marshals, and the Court, Edwards has attempted to serve the remaining 12 named defendants. (See Dkt. Nos. 56, 62, 69, 70, 75, 119, 120, 129). To date, Edwards has successfully served nine additional Defendants and appears to have served a number of Defendants twice.6 Accordingly, there are three named Defendants who have notbeen served—Bethacourt, Davis, and Johnson—and two John Doe Defendants who have not been identified.7
During the pendency of his lawsuit, Edwards has submitted several requests to the Court. By Order dated November 1, 2010, the Court denied Edwards' request for an order prohibiting certain employees at the Southport Correctional Facility, where Edwards was incarcerated at the time, from tampering with his legal and personal mail. (Dkt. No. 8). By Orders dated November 30, 2010 and April 14, 2011, the Court denied Edwards' motions for default judgment against certain Defendants (Dkt. Nos. 56, 92), and Edwards' interlocutory appeal of the November 30 Order was denied by the Second Circuit on May 26, 2011. (Dkt. No. 118). By Orders dated February 9, 2011, I declined Edwards' request that I disqualify myself from this action and also denied his motion for the appointment of counsel. (Dkt. Nos. 73-74). Lastly, on March 8, 2011, I denied Edwards' request for sanctions in connection with Corporation Counsel's providing Edwards with service addresses for Defendants. (Dkt. No. 81).
On April 4, 2011, Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (See Defendants' Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Dismiss, dated Apr. 4, 2011 ("Def. Mem.") (Dkt. No. 89)).8 Defendants assert that Edwards has failed to state a claim as to his verbal harassment, deprivation of telephone access, unconstitutional strip...
To continue reading
Request your trial