Girard v. Cuttle
| Decision Date | 10 August 2018 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. 9:15-CV-0187 (TJM/DJS) |
| Parties | CHAUNCEY GIRARD, Plaintiff, v. CUTTLE; A. HICKEY; HAROLD GRAHAM; ALEC VENDITTI; TIMOTHY ABATE; CHARLES THOMAS; RICHARD GILFUS; ANTHONY ANNUCCI; CARL KOENIGSMAN; CONNERS; and JESSICA DUGAN, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York |
JOHN F. MOORE, ESQ.
Assistant Attorney General
Pro se Plaintiff Chauncey Girard brings this civil rights action, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Defendants violated various constitutional rights in December 2014 and January 2015 while he was incarcerated at Auburn Correctional Facility. Dkt. No. 83, Am. Compl. On January 30, 2018, Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a). Dkt. No. 213. Defendants separately filed Plaintiff's medical records in support of their Motion. Dkt. No. 214. Additionally, Defendants filed an Amended Memorandum in Support of their Motion for Summary Judgment. Dkt. No. 217. Numerous documents have been considered as Plaintiff's Opposition to the Motion. See Dkt. Nos. 210, 218-220, 229, 239 & 241.1 Defendants filed a Reply. Dkt. No. 237. For the reasons that follow, the Court recommends granting Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment.
Except where otherwise noted, the following material facts are undisputed.2 At all times relevant to this action Plaintiff was an inmate in the custody of the New York Department of Corrections and Community Supervision ("DOCCS"). See generally Am. Compl. The events at issue took place in December 2014 and January 2015 at Auburn Correctional Facility. Id.
On or about December 24, 2014, Plaintiff was given a misbehavior report by Defendant C.O. Hickey regarding an incident of December 23, 2014. Dkt. No. 213-1, Declaration of John Moore ("Moore Decl."), Ex. 34, Transcript of Plaintiff's May 25, 2017 Deposition ("Pl.'s 5/25/17 Dep.") at pp. 11-13; Dkt. No. 213-3, Declaration of Defendant Dennis Hickey ("Hickey Decl.") at ¶¶ 4-7 & Ex. A; Dkt. No. 213-12, Declaration of Defendant Brian Chuttey ("Chuttey Decl.") at ¶ 9 & Ex. A at p. 20.3 The misbehavior report authored by Defendant Hickey charged Plaintiff with violating rules regarding violent conduct, assault on staff, interference, and failing to follow a direct order. Hickey Decl., ¶¶ 4-7 & Ex. A. The report involved allegations that Plaintiff was not following proper procedure and failed to follow directions from Hickey. It also alleged that Plaintiff attempted to assault Hickey. Id. at ¶ 5, Ex. A. Plaintiff was then escorted to the Special Housing Unit ("SHU") by Defendant Connors, among others. Dkt. No. 213-6, Declaration of Theodore Connors ("Connors Decl.") at ¶ 6.
Upon arrival at the SHU a series of events took place that resulted in Plaintiff being given a second misbehavior report, this one written by Corrections Officer Baney. Pl.'s 5/25/17 Dep. at pp. 13-14, 23, 37-38; Chuttey Decl. at ¶ 12 & Ex. A at p. 21. This misbehavior report charged Plaintiff with violent conduct, failing to follow a direct order, interference, and failure to comply with frisk procedures. Chuttey Decl. at ¶ 13 & Ex. A at p. 21. The second report generally alleges that Plaintiff refused to comply with proceduresfor admission to SHU. Chuttey Decl. at ¶ 14.
Plaintiff was given a third misbehavior report on December 23, 2014, this one written by C.O. Schramm. It alleged that Plaintiff refused staff direction to provide a urine sample on December 23, 2014. Pl.'s 5/25/17 Dep. at pp. 14 - 17, 23, 37-38; Chuttey Decl. at ¶ 15 & Ex. at p. 22.
While Plaintiff disputes the accuracy of the allegations in these reports, he does not challenge that the reports were issued and that he was involved in use of force incidents on December 23, 2014. Indeed, he contends that during the events surrounding the issuance of the misbehavior report authored by Defendant Hickey, that Hickey, as well as Defendants Abate, Thomas, Venditti, and Gilfus used excessive force in assaulting him. Defendant Chuttey was designated to act as the hearing officer for a combined hearing to address all three misbehavior reports issued regarding events on December 23, 2014. Chuttey Decl. at ¶¶ 3-6. Following a lengthy hearing, held over several days in January 2015, Plaintiff was found guilty of all charges. Chuttey Decl. at ¶¶ 39-42. Plaintiff administratively appealed the decision and while the guilty determinations were affirmed, the penalties were modified. Pl.'s 5/25/17 Dep. at pp. 125-28.
While Plaintiff was being escorted to SHU following the December 24, 2014 incident with Defendant Hickey, he told Defendant Connors he wanted medical treatment and claimed to be having trouble breathing. Connors Decl. at ¶ 6. Defendant Connors advised Plaintiff that he would be seen by a nurse immediately upon arrival at SHU. Id. Plaintiff was, in fact,seen by medical staff upon his arrival at SHU. Id.; Dkt. No. 213-7, Declaration of Defendant Jessica Dugan ("Dugan Decl."), ¶ 5, Ex. A.4 Plaintiff was examined by Defendant Dugan, a Registered Nurse, upon his arrival in SHU. Id.; Moore Decl., Ex. 33, Transcript of Plaintiff's October 24, 2016 Deposition Transcript ("Pl.'s 10/24/16 Dep.") at pp. 117-18. After examining Plaintiff, and making note of his injuries and physical complaints, Dugan referred Plaintiff to be seen by a doctor and he was examined by Dr. Cincotta within 10 minutes. Pl.'s 10/24/16 Dep. at pp. 120 & 124; Dugan Decl. at ¶¶ 6 & 9 & Ex. B at p. 2.
Plaintiff's Amended Complaint alleges causes of action for excessive force, failure to protect, retaliation, due process violations, and deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs.
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a), summary judgment is appropriate only where "there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." The moving party bears the burden to demonstrate through "pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with [ ] affidavits, if any," that there is no genuine issue of material fact. F.D.I.C. v. Giammettei, 34 F.3d 51, 54 (2d Cir. 1994) (quoting Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986)).
To defeat a motion for summary judgment, the non-movant must set out specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial, and cannot rest merely on allegations or denialsof the facts submitted by the movant. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); see also Scott v. Coughlin, 344 F.3d 282, 287 (2d Cir. 2003) (); Rexnord Holdings, Inc. v. Bidermann, 21 F.3d 522, 525-26 (2d Cir. 1994). To that end, sworn statements are "more than mere conclusory allegations subject to disregard . . . they are specific and detailed allegations of fact, made under penalty of perjury, and should be treated as evidence in deciding a summary judgment motion" and the credibility of such statements is better left to a trier of fact. Scott v. Coughlin, 344 F.3d at 289 ().
When considering a motion for summary judgment, the court must resolve all ambiguities and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-movant. Nora Beverages, Inc. v. Perrier Group of Am., Inc., 164 F.3d 736, 742 (2d Cir. 1998). Gallo v. Prudential Residential Servs., Ltd. P'ship, 22 F.3d 1219, 1224 (2d Cir. 1994). Furthermore, where a party is proceeding pro se, the court must "read [his or her] supporting papers liberally, and . . . interpret them to raise the strongest arguments that they suggest." Burgos v. Hopkins, 14 F.3d 787, 790 (2d Cir. 1994), accord, Soto v.Walker, 44 F.3d 169, 173 (2d Cir. 1995). Nonetheless, summary judgment is appropriate "[w]here the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party." Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986).
Defendants seek summary judgment dismissing the entire Amended Complaint on the ground that Plaintiff failed to exhaust available administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA"). Dkt. No. 217, Defs.' Am. Mem. of Law, pp. 3-7. Defendants also seek summary judgment on the merits of each of Plaintiff's individual constitutional claims with the exception of the excessive force claim. Id. at pp. 8-30. Finally, Defendants seek summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity. Id. at pp. 31-32. Defendants' arguments are considered in turn below.
Defendants seek dismissal of the entire Amended Complaint based upon Plaintiff's failure to exhaust his available administrative remedies. Defs.' Am. Mem. of Law at p. 7. As an initial matter, the Court notes that one of Plaintiff's claims is a procedural due process claim regarding the conduct of a disciplinary hearing held by Defendant Chuttey. See Am. Compl. at ¶¶ 12-16. As to that claim Plaintiff "exhausts his administrative remedies by presenting his objections in the administrative appeals process, not by filing a separate grievance instead of or in addition to his ordinary appeal." Grubbs v. Serrell, 2018 WL...
To continue reading
Request your trial