France v. Cnty. of Westchester
| Decision Date | 30 March 2016 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 12-CV-5576 (KMK) |
| Parties | ROBERT G. FRANCE, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Appearances:
Robert G. France
Wallkill, NY
Irma W. Cosgriff, Esq.
Reginald J. Johnson, Esq.
Westchester County Attorney's Office
White Plains, NY
Robert G. France ("Plaintiff"), proceeding pro se, brings this Second Amended Complaint against Westchester County ("County"), Sergeant Susan Hubbard ("Hubbard"), Correction Officer Elgin Morton ("Morton"), and Correction Officer Bradley Roane ("Roane") (collectively, "Defendants"), alleging violations of his constitutional rights. (Dkt. No. 55.) Before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) ("Motion"). (Dkt. No. 65.)1 For the following reasons, the Motion is granted in part and denied in part.
The factual allegations that follow are derived from Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint. While the Court will sometimes refer to Plaintiff's contentions as "alleged," it nonetheless treats them as true for purposes of the instant Motion. The described events took place at the Westchester County Jail ("WCJ"), where Plaintiff was incarcerated as a pre-trial detainee from at least June 2011 through at least October 2011. (See generally Decl. of Irma W. Cosgriff, Esq. Ex. C ("SAC") 4-6 (Dkt. No. 66).)2
On June 10, 2011, Plaintiff was assaulted in the kitchen block by Chuck Jones ("Jones"), another WCJ inmate. (Id. at 5.) After reporting the incident to corrections officers, Plaintiff was handcuffed and taken to the mental health block by Hubbard. (Id.)
On August 12, 2011, Plaintiff "was repeatedly excessively assaulted" by Morton, Roane, Officer Mack, Officer Tillie, and other corrections officers, "[w]ho came in wearing riot helmets, gasmasks, [s]hields, [and] riot jackets," and "carrying batons[] [and] [a] tear gas dispenser." (Id.)3 Plaintiff "was forced from his cell[,] forced on the wall [w]here . . . Morton[] [s]tarted using excessive force upon him." (Id.) Though Plaintiff "had informed [the] officers of his broken hand and other injur[ies]," Morton "twist[ed] and chok[ed] [him,] slamming his face into [the] cell door, [and] picking [him] up by the neck . . . ." (Id.) Morton also "roughly put[] [his] elbows and knees [o]n [P]laintiff['s] back." (Id.) The other officers "helped him drag Plaintiff into [his] cell[,] . . . then slamming his face again into [the] cell wall" and "then forcing him butt naked onto [the] bare metal bed while still choking him with [their] elbows and knees [o]n his back . . . ." (Id.) Thereafter, the officers "denied [Plaintiff] any kind of medical care." (Id.) At some point Roane "watched [a] video tape[] [of] [this] illegal excessive force being used without interfering." (Id. at 8.)
On September 6, 2011, "Plaintiff was again brutally assaulted by Rasheed Peterson," another WCJ inmate, who rushed into his cell and attacked him. (Id. at 6.) Hubbard "was involved" in "intentionally open[ing] [Plaintiff's] cell" to allow for the assault, as only corrections officers have "authority to handle [the cell doors'] security devices." (Id. at 5.) That same day, Plaintiff was also the victim of a "[c]onspired attack" involving two other inmates. (Id. at 6.) On October 16, 2011, Plaintiff was assaulted in his cell by a different inmate, Harry Irizarry. (Id.)
The Second Amended Complaint also includes a number of broad allegations against corrections officers generally. These include that they stood "around and watch[ed] an illegal beating without interfering," "conspir[ed] to conform disciplinary reports against Plaintiff," "[u]nlawfully confiscated [his] . . . Letter of Exhausted Remedies," and forcibly removed the cast from Plaintiff's broken hand "without any medical authorization." (Id. at 6-7.) Also according to the Second Amended Complaint, "[h]earing [o]fficers refus[ed] to call witnesses" at Plaintiff's disciplinary hearing and "fail[ed] to provide [a] meaningful explanation of the finding of guilty . . . ." (Id. at 9.) Plaintiff further alleges that he "was unlawfully confined [for] 35[] days and charged 50[] dollars [in] sur-charges after [the] attack by . . . Jones, and then after [the alleged assault by corrections officers on August 12, 2011]." (Id. at 7.) Lastly, Plaintiff alleges that he "was denied any law library clerk, or librarian assistance," despite his "medical needs [stemming from his] broken right hand . . . ." (Id. at 8.)
Plaintiff commenced the instant Action on July 16, 2012 against Westchester County Correctional Jail, New York State Commission of Correction, Hubbard, Morton, Roane, Officer Christopher Lambert ("Lambert"), Sergeant Francesco Imbrogno ("Imbrogno"), and various unnamed defendants, alleging use of excessive force and denial of medical treatment. (Dkt. No. 2.) By Order dated October 2, 2012, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's claims with respect to Westchester County Correctional Jail for failure to state a claim and with respect to New York State Commission of Correction on sovereign immunity grounds. (Dkt. No. 6.) The Court also directed the Clerk of Court to add the County as a Defendant under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21 and to issue a Summons as to the County, Hubbard, Morton, Roane, Lambert, and Imbrogno. (Id.) Plaintiff was instructed to serve the Summons and Complaint upon each named Defendant within 120 days of the issuance of the Summons and was informed that failure to serve could result in dismissal of the Complaint. (Id.) The Court also notified Plaintiff that if he intended to pursue claims against the unnamed defendants, he was to file an Amended Complaint within 30 days of being provided sufficient information for the Court issue a so-called Valentin order. (Id.)4 On December 5, 2012, the Court noted that Plaintiff did not file an Amended Complaint within that 30-day window. (Dkt. No. 10.) As of July 31, 2013, Plaintiff still had not served Imbrogno or Lambert, and by Order the Court dismissed the Action without prejudice as to those individuals. (Dkt. No. 21.)
At a pre-motion conference held on October 30, 2013, the Court granted Plaintiff 30 days to amend his Complaint. (Dkt No. 32.) Instead of filing an amended pleading, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to Amend on January 15, 2014. (Dkt No. 33.) On February 11, 2014, the Court granted Plaintiff "one final opportunity to amend his Complaint," extending his time an additional 30 days. (Dkt No. 35.)
At a pre-motion conference held on May 6, 2014, Plaintiff was given another 60 days to amend his Complaint and to request permission to consolidate this Action with another suit that he previously filed. (Dkt. No. 37.) In a letter dated June 18, 2014, Plaintiff requested another extension to file an amended complaint, claiming he had been "fraudulently intentional [sic] boxed in . . . Fishkill Correctional Facility," that his personal property (including grievances and legal documents) had been stolen or destroyed, and that his "access to the[] law library [was] not in [his] control." (Dkt. No. 38.) At that time the Court reminded Plaintiff that he had been told there would be no more extensions and found that the reasons stated in his letter were insufficient to grant his request. (Dkt No. 39.) Nevertheless, the Court ultimately granted him another extension to file an amended pleading, this time until November 20, 2014. (Dkt No. 44.) Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on November 24, 2014, naming more than 90 defendants and listing the docket numbers of three other cases that had already been dismissed. (Dkt No. 46.) By Order dated December 17, 2014, the Court accepted the Amended Complaint for filing but dismissed it for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, as Plaintiff "fail[ed] to clearly allege conduct and/or circumstances that make up his claim." (Dkt. No. 48.) Plaintiff was given until March 23, 2015 to file an amended pleading. (Dkt. No. 52.)
On March 24, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint, naming more than 20 defendants. (Dkt. No. 55.) Pursuant to a scheduling order adopted by the Court on June 16, 2015, (Dkt. No. 60), Defendants filed their Motion and supporting papers on September 10, 2015, (Dkt. Nos. 65-67). Plaintiff has not submitted any response.5
"While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff's obligation to provide the grounds of his entitlement to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (alteration, citation, and internal quotation marks omitted). Indeed, Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure "demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). "Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement." Id. (alterations and internal quotation marks omitted). Instead, a complaint's "[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level . . . ." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Although "once a claim has been stated adequately, it may be supported by showing any set of facts consistent with the allegations in the complaint," id. at 563, and a plaintiff must allege "only enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face," id. at 570, if a plaintiff has not "nudged [his or her] claim[] across the line from conceivable to plausible, the[] complaint must be dismissed," id; see also Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679 (...
To continue reading
Request your trial