H'Shaka v. O'Gorman
| Decision Date | 12 March 2020 |
| Docket Number | 9:17-CV-0108 (GTS/ATB) |
| Citation | 444 F.Supp.3d 355 |
| Parties | Imhotep H'SHAKA, Plaintiff, v. James O'GORMAN, Acting Deputy Commissioner for Correctional Facilities, Department of Corrections and Community Supervision; Maureen Bosco, Former Executive Director, Central New York Psychiatric Center; Deborah McCulloch, Executive Director, Central New York Psychiatric Center; Joanne Waldron, Office of Mental Health Unit Chief, Clinton Correctional Facility ; Joseph J. Porcelli, Offender Rehabilitation Coordinator, Clinton Correctional Facility ; Kevin Randall, Sergeant, Clinton Correctional Facility ; David Lucia, Acting Deputy Superintendent of Security, Clinton Correctional Facility ; Justin Delisle, Sergeant, Clinton Correctional Facility ; and Joseph Bellnier, Former Deputy Commissioner for Correctional Facilities, Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York |
ALISSA R. HULL, ESQ., MICHAEL E. CASSIDY, ESQ., PRISONERS' LEGAL SERVICES OF NEW YORK, Counsel for Plaintiff, 114 Prospect Street, Ithaca, NY 14850.
BIJAN AMINI, ESQ., JOHN W. BREWER, ESQ., STEVEN G. STORCH, ESQ., MATTHEW P. REED, ESQ., AMINI LLC, Co-Counsel for Plaintiff, Assistant Attorney General, 2 Grand Central Tower, 140 East 45th Street, 25th Floor, New York, NY 10017.
WILLIAM A. SCOTT, ESQ., Assistant Attorney General, HON. LETITIA JAMES, Attorney General of the State of New York, Counsel for Defendants, The Capitol, Albany, NY 12224.
DECISION and ORDER
GLENN T. SUDDABY, Chief United States District Judge Currently before the Court, in this prisoner civil rights action filed by Imhotep H'Shaka ("Plaintiff") against James O'Gorman, Joseph Porcelli, Kevin Randall, David Lucia, Justin Delisle, and Joseph Bellnier ("DOCCS Defendants), and Maureen Bosco, Deborah McCulloch, and Joanne Waldron ("OMH Defendants"), is Defendants' motion for summary judgment. (Dkt. No. 82.) For the reasons set forth below, Defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part.
Generally, Plaintiff's Amended Complaint asserts four claims:1 (1) cruel and unusual punishment related to the conditions of his confinement in the form of keeping him in administrative segregation indefinitely in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments ("First Claim"); (2) deliberate indifference to his medical needs and failure to provide adequate medical care in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments ("Second Claim"); (3) denial of substantive due process through imposition of a disproportionate punishment (i.e., continued confinement in administrative segregation despite an extensive recent history of non-violent behavior) that offends society's sense of decency and constitutes an intolerable practice in modern society ("Third Claim"); and (4) denial of procedural due process and meaningful review related to his continued confinement in administrative segregation in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment ("Fourth Claim"). (Dkt. No. 39, at ¶¶ 175-89 [Pl.'s Am. Compl.].)2
The following facts were asserted and supported with accurate record citations by Defendants in their Statement of Material Facts and either expressly admitted by Plaintiff or denied without appropriate record citations in his response thereto.
1. Plaintiff first entered DOCCS custody in 1991 after a conviction for Second Degree Murder and Second Degree Criminal Possession of a Weapon.
2. Formerly known as Corey Heath, Plaintiff had a history of violence dating back to 1986, when he was just 13 years old.
3. Before entering DOCCS custody, Plaintiff had received a felony conviction for second degree assault in a Division for Youth facility, and spent time in a local jail for possession of a controlled substance.
4. Between 1992 and 1995, while in DOCCS custody, Plaintiff received 13 disciplinary tickets.
5. Plaintiff has accrued 35 disciplinary tickets during his confinement.
6. On January 14, 1996, Plaintiff was involved in an altercation with two corrections officers at Coxsackie Correctional Facility.
7. During this incident, Plaintiff obtained a razorblade and used it to slash the forehead of corrections officer Alec Saddlemire, causing arterial bleeding from that area.
8. Mr. Saddlemire suffered permanent loss of the slashed artery.
9. Plaintiff also used the razorblade to slash the face of corrections officer Thomas Foley (who had come to the aid of Mr. Saddlemire) several times, with one wound
running from Mr. Foley's neck to the top of his head.
10. Plaintiff was tried in Greene County Court and found guilty of first degree assault on Mr. Saddlemire, resulting in an additional 15-year sentence of confinement.
11. Plaintiff was also found guilty through DOCCS' internal tier hearing process of assault on both corrections officers and was sentenced to 15 years of disciplinary confinement in the Special Housing Unit ("SHU"). This sentence was eventually reduced to ten years.
12. Plaintiff's misbehavior did not cease after his 1996 SHU placement.
13. On April 12, 1999, Plaintiff was in Albany County Supreme Court for a hearing in a civil matter and was allowed to remain uncuffed in the courtroom.
14. During the hearing, Plaintiff attacked his co-defendant by striking him in the head.
15. Plaintiff "bolted" for the door of the courtroom in an attempt to escape from custody, but was apprehended and returned to his seat.
16. Plaintiff verbally threatened the DOCCS sergeant who restrained him, and told the judge,
17. Between 1999 and 2010, during the course of disciplinary confinement, Plaintiff earned ten separate misbehavior reports, including charges of violating direct orders, being under the influence or in possession of alcohol and drugs, harassment, lewd conduct, and interference with employees.
18. On November 3, 2010, at the conclusion of Plaintiff's disciplinary confinement, a hearing was held to determine whether he should be continued in SHU as an administrative segregation ("Ad Seg") inmate.
19. At the conclusion of the hearing, it was determined, based upon Plaintiff's serious misconduct both before incarceration and during his confinement as well as his confirmed connection to gang activity, that his presence in the general population of any correctional facility would jeopardize the safe and secure operation of the prison.
20. Plaintiff appealed his initial placement in Ad Seg and, pursuant to a decision on September 26, 2012, by the New York Appellate Division Third Department, he received a new hearing; at the conclusion of that hearing, he was again placed in Ad Seg.
21. Since Plaintiff's placement in Ad Seg, he has continued to accrue misbehavior reports for interference, disobeying direct orders, possessing contraband, and making an unauthorized phone call.
22. During the three-way phone call placed in September 2017 that was the subject of one of these misbehavior reports, Plaintiff asked family members to research Mr. Foley, the victim of his assault on January 14, 1996.
23. At relevant times between 2013 and 2019, Plaintiff had been confined in the SHU at Clinton Correctional Facility; he was transferred to Attica Correctional Facility in April 2019.
24. Inmates in SHU typically remain in their cell for 23 hours per day and are allowed outdoors for one hour of recreation in an individual recreation cell.
25. SHU inmates are offered a minimum of three showers per week, and have the opportunity to earn a fourth shower on Sundays if they have earned privileges under the Progressive Inmate Movement System ("PIMS").
26. SHU inmates who have earned PIMS III status receive one phone call every thirty days, two visits per week, some additional personal property, five dollars ($5.00) in commissary charges, and four showers per week.
27. Plaintiff has been afforded the above privileges.
28. Cleaning supplies are offered to all inmates in SHU.
29. Plaintiff took advantage of the cleaning supplies when offered and keeps his cell neat and tidy at all times.
30. All inmates at Clinton Correctional Facility are housed in single-occupancy cells, whether they are in the general population or in SHU.
31. The cells at Clinton Correctional Facility, and particularly the cell in which Plaintiff was housed, are secured by a door with open bars.
32. The sergeant assigned to the SHU tours the area on a daily basis, conducting "rounds," during which he speaks individually with all of the inmates, addresses concerns the inmates might have, and assesses whether each inmate seems to be coping well with his confinement.
33. In addition to the SHU sergeant's rounds, rounds are conducted by a corrections officer every 30 to 60 minutes, and on a daily basis by a medical nurse, a nurse from the Office of Mental Health ("OMH"), and an OMH counselor.
34. A facility lieutenant also makes a round of the SHU each day, and the captain, superintendent, deputy superintendent for security ("DSS") and OMH Unit Chief each visit the SHU weekly.
35. Each of these individuals has interacted with Plaintiff during their rounds of the SHU at Clinton Correctional Facility.
36. Inmates held in DOCCS facilities are evaluated by OMH personnel and provided mental health services based on a determined mental health service level ("MHSL"), which is assessed on a five-level scale.
37. An MHSL of 6 indicates that the inmate has no need for mental health services at that time.
38. An MHSL of 1 indicates that an inmate may have a significant behavioral disorder
, or have been discharged from psychiatric inpatient hospitalization in the last six months.
39. Inmates with an MHSL of 1, 2, 3, or 4 are offered mental health services commensurate with their treatment level.
40. Their...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Hart v. Artus
-
Brown v. Dep't of Corr.
...conducted atPage 23 least periodically and that they thus satisfy the constitutional requirement in that respect.H'Shaka v. O'Gorman, 444 F. Supp. 3d 355, 373 (N.D.N.Y. 2020)Once a prisoner is placed in administrative segregation, prison officials must conduct a periodic review of the confi......
- Baltas v. Maiga
-
Brown v. Dep't of Corr.
...were conducted at least periodically and that they thus satisfy the constitutional requirement in that respect.H'Shaka v. O'Gorman, 444 F. Supp. 3d 355, 373 (N.D.N.Y. 2020)Once a prisoner is placed in administrative segregation, prison officials must conduct a periodic review of the confine......