Gilliam v. Quinlan
Decision Date | 25 February 1985 |
Docket Number | No. 84 Civ. 2151 (DNE).,84 Civ. 2151 (DNE). |
Citation | 608 F. Supp. 823 |
Parties | Walter James GILLIAM, Plaintiff, v. J. Michael QUINLAN, John Michael Brown, Ann D. Bartolo, Carolyn V. Rickards, Michael Pugh, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Walter James Gilliam, pro se.
Jorge Guttlein, Asst. U.S. Atty., S.D. N.Y., New York City, for defendants.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction is denied.
IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted.
IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the case is dismissed.
January 15, 1985
MICHAEL H. DOLLINGER, United States Magistrate:
On March 14, 1984, plaintiff Walter James Gilliam, then an inmate at the Federal Correctional Institution at Otisville, New York ("FCI"), commenced this action for money damages and injunctive relief against five officials and employees of the FCI.1 The complaint named defendants in both their official and their individual capacities, asserting that they had conspired to violate various of plaintiff's constitutional rights, and requesting $12,000,000.00 in damages and an injunction against further harassment.
This case was referred to me by the Honorable David N. Edelstein, United States District Judge, to report and recommend a final disposition of the matter. Presently pending before me are defendants' motions to dismiss or for summary judgment and plaintiff's subsequently filed motion for "a restraining order." For the reasons that follow, I recommend that defendants' motions be granted and that plaintiff's motion, which is moot, be denied.
By his complaint plaintiff alleged in substance (1) that on December 20, 1983 defendants Carolyn Rickards and Ann D. Bartolo conspired and lied to wrongfully deny him a furlough; (2) that on December 5, 1983 Rickards and Bartolo wrongfully deprived him of an earned vacation; (3) that beginning on January 20, 1984 plaintiff was wrongfully deprived of certain mailing privileges; (4) that on March 1, 1984 plaintiff was again wrongfully denied a furlough; (5) that defendants repeatedly tampered with plaintiff's outgoing mail; (6) that the above actions were undertaken because of hostility towards plaintiff's religious beliefs; and (7) that defendant Michael Pugh altered plaintiff's legal documents to deprive plaintiff of privileges to which he was otherwise entitled.
The scope of plaintiff's charges was expanded on April 13, 1984 by the filing of a "Motion Requesting that the Court Order a Restaining Order Against All Defendants Forthwith ...," which this Court deemed to be a motion for a preliminary injunction. See Order dated April 26, 1984. In his motion plaintiff alleged in general terms that defendant John Brown was deliberately preventing him from doing his legal work, that his room was being searched almost daily, that some of his religious materials were missing, and that he was in fear for his life.
On May 22, 1984 defendants moved to dismiss plaintiff's complaint, or in the alternative, for summary judgment, and submitted papers as well in opposition to plaintiff's injunction motion. The principal thrust of defendants' motion is that the various administrative and disciplinary measures of which plaintiff complains are entirely legitimate internal disciplinary measures undertaken by the correctional authorities in the exercise of their recognized discretion. They further claim both...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Rosenberg v. Meese
...compensable injury, the facts of this case suggest that defendants may still be entitled to qualified immunity. See Gilliam v. Quinlan, 608 F.Supp. 823, 836 (S.D.N.Y. 1985) (prisoner's § 1983 action against prison officials and employees dismissed on defendants' motion for summary judgment ......
-
Lee v. Carlson
...Gregoire v. Biddle, 177 F.2d 579, 581 (2d Cir.1949), cert. denied, 339 U.S. 949, 70 S.Ct. 803, 94 L.Ed. 1363 (1950); Gilliam v. Quinlan, 608 F.Supp. 823, 830 (D.C.N.Y.1985). 12 See Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971). 13 See Bivens v. Six U......
-
Brown v. Fischer
...grievances and the "over 300" intercepted letters are too vague and conclusory to state claims for relief.See Gilliam v. Quinlan, 608 F. Supp. 823, 838 (S.D.N.Y. 1985) (dismissing as too vague and conclusory inmate's mail-tampering claim where neither in his complaint nor in his subsequent ......
-
Karacsonyi v. Radloff
...is apparent that the regulations were not intended to create any entitlement to a furlough under any circumstances." Gilliam v. Quinlan, 608 F.Supp. 823, 834 (S.D.N.Y. 1985). Therefore, this claim also lacks Finally, Karacsonyi contends that his placement in a four-person cell rises to the ......