Felix v. N.Y. State Dep't of Corr.
| Decision Date | 23 July 2018 |
| Docket Number | No. 16-CV-7978 (CS),16-CV-7978 (CS) |
| Parties | DONALD FELIX, Plaintiff, v. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS and COMMUNITY SUPERVISION, JILL LEONARD-HORNE (Area Supervisor), MARIO DAVILA (Senior Parole Officer), STEVE ROSENBAUM (Parole Revocation Specialist), JOHN CIESLAK (Parole Officer), John Doe 1 and John Doe 2, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Appearances:
Robert Rambadadt
The Rambadadt Law Office
New York, New York
Counsel for Plaintiff
Assistant Attorney General
Office of the New York State Attorney General
New York, New York
Before me is the motion to dismiss of Defendants New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision ("DOCCS"), Jill-Lenard Horne, Mario Davila, Steve Rosenblum, and John Cieslak (collectively, "Defendants").1 (Doc. 27.) For the following reasons, the motion is GRANTED.
I accept as true the facts, but not the conclusions, set forth in Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint, (Doc. 24 ("SAC")).
Plaintiff Donald Felix, a parolee, is a resident of Fishkill, New York. (SAC ¶¶ 7, 17.) DOCCS runs the New York State Department of Parole ("NYSDOP"), which oversees prisoners released before the completion of their sentences. (Id. ¶¶ 8, 9.) The individual Defendants were all employed by DOCCS and assigned to the NYSDOP office in Dutchess County, New York: Lenard-Horne as the area supervisor; Davila as a senior parole officer; Rosenblum as a parole revocation specialist; and Cieslak as a parole officer. (Id. ¶¶ 11-14.)
On or about May 28, 2014, Cieslak ordered Felix to report to the Dutchess County NYSDOP office. (Id. ¶ 17.) Upon his arrival, Plaintiff was informed that there had been allegations of domestic violence brought against him regarding his wife, Trisha Felix. (Id. ¶¶ 18, 25.) Cieslak instructed Plaintiff to sign special parole conditions, which included a provision forbidding him from cohabitating with Ms. Felix. (Id. ¶ 18.) Plaintiff did not believe that he had to sign the document and made legal and procedural arguments as to why. (Id. ¶ 19.) Upon his refusal to sign, Lenard-Horne and Davila were called over to confer on the matter. (Id. ¶ 20.)
Lenard-Horne informed Plaintiff that he did not have to sign the document containing the special parole conditions, but would still have to abide by the conditions. (Id.) Plaintiff understood that he would have to abide by those conditions, yet continued to question why he had to sign the document itself. (Id. ¶ 21.) Cieslak, Lenard-Horne, and Davila then left the roomto discuss the matter. (Id. ¶ 22.) Shortly thereafter, Cieslak, in the presence of Lenard-Horne and Davila, and with their agreement, arrested Plaintiff. (Id. ¶ 23.)
A notice of violation was issued on May 30, 2014. (SAC Ex. A ("Tr. of Preliminary Hearing") at 4:10; see Doc. 29 Ex. A ("Parole Revocation Decision Notice") at 3.) Plaintiff was charged with four violations. (Tr. of Preliminary Hearing at 4:11-13, 6:1-3; Parole Revocation Decision Notice at 3.) The first three charges alleged a violation of condition of release #8 stemming from Plaintiff slapping Ms. Felix in the face with a pair of jeans and placing his hands around her neck: (1) threatening Ms. Felix's safety or well-being; (2) placing her in fear of imminent serious physical injury; and (3) causing injury to her. (Parole Revocation Decision Notice at 3-4.) The fourth charge alleged that Plaintiff, by refusing to sign the special parole conditions, did not comply with the instructions of his parole officer. (Id. at 4.)
DOCCS held a preliminary revocation hearing on June 10, 2014. (Tr. of Preliminary Hearing at 1:12; 53:13.) Plaintiff was represented by counsel. (Id. at 1:21.)
Cieslak presented the State's case. (Id. at 6:1-5.) He explained that he investigated the allegations of domestic violence by reviewing the underlying police report, and by interviewing both the police officer that spoke with Ms. Felix at the police station and Ms. Felix. (Id. at 8:5-6, 17:18-21:11.) The police report described what Ms. Felix told the police officer: she and Plaintiff "got into [an] argument" and "[h]e hit her with a pair of her pants on/around [her] face/head [and] then pushed her onto [a] bed and put [his] hand around her neck but did not use force." (SAC Ex. C at 1.) The report went on to mention that Ms. Felix refused to cooperate and that she left before the paperwork was complete. (Id. at 1-2.) According to Cieslak, the police officer said Ms. Felix was "dishevelled [sic], . . . anxious, [and] frightened" at the time. (Tr. ofPreliminary Hearing at 18:9-10.) Cieslak also testified that Ms. Felix "told [him that she and Plaintiff] had an argument and [Plaintiff] got mad, and he slapped her with a pair of jeans." (Id. at 19:15-17; see id. at 21:8-11 ().)
Ms. Felix testified at the preliminary hearing. (Id. at 33:23-44:8.) She testified that she had told the police that Plaintiff "slapped [her] with a pair of pants" and that he "had thrown [her] down on the bed and put his hands around [her] neck," but she refused to sign a statement saying the same. (Id. at 41:8-19.) She further testified that when Cieslak asked her what she had told the police, she repeated the same story. (Id. at 36:12-20.) But at the hearing, she recanted, claiming what she told the police was "not what occurred." (Id. at 41:20-22; see id. at 34:9-35:3; SAC ¶ 25.) She explained that she was thinking about moving out after an argument with Plaintiff, but when she asked the police to escort her to her house to get her things, the officer purportedly "made [her] feel like [she] had to make it bigger than" what actually happened, so she "told [the officer] that [Plaintiff] had hit [her] and put his hands around [her] neck." (Tr. of Preliminary Hearing at 34:9-35:9.) She did not explain why she wanted a police escort to return home.
Cieslak also said that after his investigation, he met "with [his] supervisor, [and they] decided to amend [Plaintiff's] [s]pecial [c]onditions of [r]elease." (Id. at 8:7-8.) Cieslak gave Plaintiff the form with the special conditions and told Plaintiff that he needed to sign the form, but he refused. (Id. at 8:10-16; see SAC Ex. D.) The following appeared above the line where Cieslak wanted Plaintiff to sign: "I hereby certify that I have read and understand the above Special Conditions of my release and that I have received a copy of these Special Conditions." (SAC Ex. D.)
Plaintiff testified that he did not refuse to sign the form but rather he "was trying to get clarification to understand what [he] was signing." (Tr. of Preliminary Hearing at 31:2-4; see id. at 27:11-28:4.)2 He denied the domestic violence allegations and he claimed that he did not understand how he could be subject to a condition of release based on no evidence. (Id. at 29:1-3.) Plaintiff also testified that Lenard-Horne and Davila told him that he did not need to sign the form. (Id. at 29:4-7.)
Finally, Davila testified that Plaintiff had argued that he did not have to sign the form because it was a special condition of release and he was already released. (Id. at 46:9-15.) In response, Davila explained to Plaintiff that he was released to parole, which meant that his parole officer may impose other special conditions. (Id. at 47:2-7.) He further testified that after Plaintiff refused to sign, Lenard-Horne said that Plaintiff did not have to sign but the conditions would still be enforced. (Id. at 47:8-16, 48:11-15.)
The hearing officer concluded that there was probable cause as to the first charge based on Ms. Felix's statement to the police department, and as to the fourth charge based on the "credible testimony" of Cieslak and Davila regarding Plaintiff's refusal to sign the special conditions. (Id. at 51:17-52:1.) Accordingly, he directed that Plaintiff would be held until a final revocation hearing. (Id. at 52:2-3.) He also said that he would produce a written decision. (Id. at 52:4-6.)3
DOCCS held a final revocation hearing on August 7, 2014 before an administrative law judge ("ALJ"). Rosenblum presented the State's case; Plaintiff was represented by counsel. (Tr. of Revocation Hearing at 1:16-17, 1:21.) Ms. Felix testified that she went to the police because she wanted emotional support and that she did not provide the police with a signed, written statement because she had lied to them. (Id. at 20:14-21:23.) Cieslak testified, describing his interview with Ms. Felix, (id. at 31:12-34:7),4 and the moments leading up to Plaintiff's arrest, (id. at 56:22-65:15).
According to Cieslak, after he initially instructed Plaintiff that he must sign the special conditions or else he would "certainly go to jail," (id. at 57:6-9), Lenard-Horne told Plaintiff that he did not need to sign the document, (id. at 55:4-13). Cieslak then told Plaintiff to "[f]orget what she said[:] . . . sign this document right now . . . [or] you are going to jail." (Id. at 63:10-14.) Plaintiff replied, "But she said . . . ," before Cieslak interrupted him and said, (Id. at 63:15-19.) Afterwards, Cieslak met privately with Lenard-Horne and Davila, and he informed them that he directed Plaintiff to sign the form. (Id. at 61:20-62:12.) Then, Lenard-Horne and Davila conferenced and instructed Cieslak to arrest Plaintiff. (Id. at 64:12-21.)
Plaintiff also testified that after he voiced his objections to Cieslak, Cieslak went to get Lenard-Horne. (Id. at 92:14-16.) Lenard-Horne then told Plaintiff that he did not have to sign the...
To continue reading
Request your trial