Guarneri v. Superintendent Calvin E. West

• Citation: 782 F.Supp.2d 51
• Decision Date: 06 May 2011
• Docket Number: No. 05–CV–6483L.,05–CV–6483L.
• Parties: Joseph Paul GUARNERI, Plaintiff,v.Superintendent Calvin E. WEST, Elmira Correctional Facility, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of New York

782 F.Supp.2d 51

Joseph Paul GUARNERI, Plaintiff,

v.Superintendent Calvin E. WEST, Elmira Correctional Facility, et al., Defendants.

No. 05–CV–6483L.

United States District Court, W.D. New York.

May 6, 2011.

Joseph Paul Guarneri, Middleburgh, NY, pro se.Gary M. Levine, New York State Office of the Attorney General, Rochester, NY, for Defendants.

DECISION AND ORDER

DAVID G. LARIMER, District Judge.

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Joseph Paul Guarneri (“plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, brings this action against Elmira Correctional Facility (“Elmira”) employees; Sergeant Kattylacky, Nurse Administrator Hapkin, and Superintendent Calvin E. West (collectively “Elmira defendants”), as well as several Attica Correctional Facility (“Attica”) employees; Superintendent James T. Conway, Deputy Superintendents M. Woeller and Randy James, Deputy Superintendent of Programs Sandra Dolce, Corrections Counselor L. Guertin, Grievance Supervisor George Struebel, Nurse Administrator B. Frisby, Physicians Dr. John Bauers and Dr. Laskawski, nurses Turton and Hawley, corrections officers D. Adamy, Rademacker, Preacher and two “John Doe” corrections officers (collectively “Attica defendants”).

Plaintiff alleges that the defendants subjected him to cruel and unusual punishment and denied him equal protection of the law, in violation of his rights pursuant to, inter alia, the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. (Dkt. # 4).

Plaintiff commenced the instant action on September 15, 2005. (Dkt. # 1). He claims that during his one month's incarceration at Elmira, the Elmira defendants violated his constitutional rights by failing to provide him with proper ventilation and heating, neglecting to timely repair a clogged toilet, failing to provide plaintiff with more than three opportunities to shower per week and/or failing to provide plaintiff with handicap-accessible showers to accommodate his knee brace, failing to provide adequate treatment for plaintiff's mental health, high blood pressure, hyperthyroidism and knee injury, and failing to provide him with sufficiently frequent access to the facility's law library. He alleges that after he was transferred to Attica, each of the Attica defendants denied him adequate mental health and medical care, subjected him to an unnecessarily rough pat search, denied him access to the law library on a number of occasions, and/or refused to let him out of his cell to attend certain religious services or observe several religious holidays. (Dkt. # 4).

On January 29, 2010, the defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's claims, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 56 (Dkt. # 87). On February 24, 2010, plaintiff filed papers opposing the motion. (Dkt. # 100).

For the reasons set forth below, the defendants' motion (Dkt. # 87) is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

DISCUSSION

I. Summary Judgment

Summary judgment is appropriate where the record demonstrates that “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). See also Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). Where the party opposing summary judgment is proceeding pro se, the Court must “read the pleadings ... liberally and interpret them to raise the strongest arguments that they suggest.” Corcoran v. New York Power Auth., 202 F.3d 530, 536 (2d Cir.1999). However, “proceeding pro se does not otherwise relieve [an opposing party] from the usual requirements of summary judgment.” Fitzpatrick v. N.Y. Cornell Hosp., 2003 WL 102853 at *5, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25166 at *5 (S.D.N.Y.2003). Those requirements include the obligation not to rest upon mere conclusory allegations or denials, but instead to set forth “concrete particulars” showing that a trial is needed. R.G. Group, Inc. v. Horn & Hardart Co., 751 F.2d 69, 77 (2d Cir.1984).

II. Plaintiff's ClaimsA. Claims Concerning Conditions at Elmira

Prison conditions which result in the “unnecessary and wanton” infliction of pain, and which are “totally without penological justification,” are unconstitutional. Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 346, 101 S.Ct. 2392, 69 L.Ed.2d 59 (1981). However, in order to implicate the Constitution, a claim must be grounded upon “extreme deprivations,” Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 9, 112 S.Ct. 995, 117 L.Ed.2d 156 (1992), which are “barbarous” or “shocking to the conscience.” Sostre v. McGinnis, 442 F.2d 178, 191 (2d Cir.1971), and not simply on conditions that are merely unpleasant or annoying to the inmate.

In determining whether prison conditions violate the Constitution, the Court first examines whether the deprivation is objectively “sufficiently serious” to form the basis for an Eighth Amendment violation. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994) (internal quotations omitted). “The Constitution ... does not mandate comfortable prisons, and only those deprivations denying the minimal civilized measure of life's necessities” will be found sufficiently serious. Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298, 111 S.Ct. 2321, 115 L.Ed.2d 271 (1991), quoting Rhodes, 452 U.S. 337 at 347–349, 101 S.Ct. 2392. Second, the finder of fact must examine the subjective prong of the analysis, and determine whether the defendants were deliberately indifferent to the prisoner's needs, acting “maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm.” Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 320–321, 106 S.Ct. 1078, 89 L.Ed.2d 251 (1986).

Here, I find that plaintiff cannot demonstrate that the alleged deprivations were sufficiently serious to rise to the level of a constitutional violation. Plaintiff alleges that at various points during his brief, one-month, incarceration at Elmira, the Elmira defendants were indifferent to his needs in several respects.

Even accepting all of plaintiff's factual allegations as true, plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that he was subjected to an extreme deprivation. Although plaintiff claims that poor ventilation and uncomfortably warm air temperatures inside his cell at Elmira caused him to be bed-ridden with a cold and walking pneumonia, plaintiff—despite seeing nurses at least three times per day to receive medication and mental health treatment—never sought or received any treatment for respiratory problems, nor does he offer any evidence that poor ventilation was the cause of his distress. Indeed, it is undisputed that one wall of plaintiff's cell was comprised of bars, which permitted the free circulation of air from his cell to other areas, including the hallway and common areas outside plaintiff's cell, which he concedes were of an acceptable temperature. Overall, plaintiff presents no evidence of injury, and “[t]he Eighth Amendment does not guarantee a certain type of ventilation system or a certain rate of air exchange.” Bolton v. Goord, 992 F.Supp. 604, 628 (S.D.N.Y.1998).

Furthermore, to the extent plaintiff complained about the conditions of his incarceration, such as the clogged toilet, the defendants did not display “deliberate indifference,” but responded quickly and appropriately. As soon as the faulty toilet was reported, facility workers twice attempted to repair it. After the second attempt failed, plaintiff was immediately moved to another cell. It is undisputed that throughout this time, plaintiff had access to other, functioning toilets elsewhere in the facility, and in fact plaintiff testified that he had not even attempted to use the cell toilet during his first three days in the cell. With respect to plaintiff's complaint about inaccessible showers, there is no evidence that plaintiff ever requested and was denied accessible showers, or that he otherwise complained or pursued a grievance about the issue. Minor disagreements about matters such as the frequency with which prisoners are permitted to take showers (three times per week) represent benign inconveniences of prison life which “are part of the penalty that criminal offenders pay for their offenses against society.” Anderson v. Coughlin, 757 F.2d 33, 35 (2d Cir.1985) ( quoting Rhodes, 452 U.S. 337 at 347, 101 S.Ct. 2392).

Because plaintiff has neither alleged nor demonstrated a deprivation “sufficiently serious” to implicate the Eighth Amendment, his claims concerning the prison conditions are dismissed.

B. Claims of Deliberate Indifference to Medical Needs

Plaintiff alleges that Nurse Administrator Hopkins and Superintendent West denied him adequate mental health and medical care while he was incarcerated at Elmira, and that Superintendent Conway, Grievance Supervisor Struebel, Corrections Officer Radmacher, Nurse Administrator Frisby, Dr. Bauers, Dr. Laskowski, Nurse Turton and Nurse Hawley denied him adequate mental health and medical care at Attica.

In order to establish an Eighth Amendment claim for the denial of adequate medical care, an inmate must allege and prove that prison officials exhibited deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976). A mere “complaint that a physician has been negligent in diagnosing or treating a medical condition does not state a valid claim of medical mistreatment under the Eighth Amendment. Medical malpractice does not become a constitutional violation merely because the victim is a prisoner.” Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106, 97 S.Ct. 285. Instead, the conduct at issue must be so egregious as to be “repugnant to the conscience of mankind.” Id. at 102, 97 S.Ct. 285.

Similarly, an inmate's “disagreement over the proper treatment does not create a constitutional claim. So long as the treatment given is adequate, the fact that a prisoner might prefer a different treatment does not give rise to an Eighth Amendment violation.” Chance v. Armstrong, 143 F.3d 698, 703 (2d Cir.1998). See also Reyes v. Ellen Gardener, 93 Fed.Appx. 283, 285 (2d Cir.2004).

Even granting Guarneri's...