Hamilton v. N.Y. State Dep't of Corr. & Cmty. Supervison
| Decision Date | 04 June 2019 |
| Docket Number | 9:18-CV-1312 (MAD/CFH) |
| Parties | DERRICK M. HAMILTON, Plaintiff, v. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION, et. al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York |
APPEARANCES:
DERRICK M. HAMILTON
Plaintiff, pro se
Auburn Correctional Facility
P.O. Box 618
Auburn, NY 13021
Pro se plaintiff Derrick M. Hamilton ("Plaintiff") commenced this action by filing a Complaint asserting claims arising out of his confinement in the custody of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision ("DOCCS") at Auburn Correctional Facility ("Auburn C.F."). Dkt. No. 1 ("Compl."). In the original Complaint, Plaintiff identified the following individuals as defendants: Commissioner Anthony J. Annucci ("Annucci"), Superintendent Harold Graham ("Graham"), Prison Guard A. Venditti ("Venditti"), and Prison Guard Delfavero ("Delfavero"). Id. at 1-3. Plaintiff also named DOCCS as a defendant. Id.
By Decision and Order filed December 17, 2018 (the "December Order"), this Court reviewed the sufficiency of the Complaint in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and dismissed the following claims, with prejudice: (1) claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ("Section 1983") for monetary damages against DOCCS and defendants in their official capacity; (2) claims pursuant to the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 ("RLUIPA") against defendants in their individual capacity and RLUIPA claims for monetary damages and declaratory judgment against defendants in their official capacities; and (3) claims asserted pursuant to various United States Treaties. Dkt. No. 4. The Court also dismissed the following claims, without prejudice: (1) First Amendment religious claims; (2) equal protection claims; (3) retaliation claims; (4) claims for injunctive relief; and (5) New York State Constitutional claims. Id. In light of his pro se status, Plaintiff was afforded an opportunity to submit an amended pleading with respect to the claims that were dismissed without prejudice. Id. at 24.
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. Dkt. No. 15 ("Am. Compl.").
The legal standard governing the dismissal of a pleading for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) was discussed at length in the December Order and will not be restated here. See Dkt. No. 4 at 2-4. Taking into account Plaintiff's pro se status, the Court construes the allegations in the Amended Complaint with the utmost leniency. See, e.g., Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 521 (1972) ().
In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff asserts new claims and realleges previously dismissed claims against Annucci, Graham, Venditti, and Delfavero. Plaintiff also asserts claims against the following new defendants: Deputy Commissioner of Program Services Jeff McKoy ("McKoy"), Director of Division of Ministerial, Family, and Volunteer Services ("DMFVS") Cheryl Morris ("Morris"), Assistant Director of DMFVS Paul Guenette ("Guenette"), Chaplain Marcia Stewart ("Stewart"), Chaplain Wayne Rose ("Rose"), Director of Inmate Grievance Program ("IGP") Karen Bellamy ("Bellamy"), Director of IGP Shelly Mallozzi ("Mallozzi"), Superintendent Timothy McCarthy ("McCarthy"), Deputy Superintendent of Program Services G. Schenk ("Schenk"), Steward D. Vanni ("Vanni"), Assistant Food Service Administrator, A. Bertonica ("Bertonica"), Lieutenant Kelsey ("Kelsey"), Watch Commander John Doe #1 ("WC John Doe #1"), Watch Commander John Doe #2 ("WC John Doe #2"), Watch Commander John Doe #3 ("WC John Doe #3"), Senior Chaplain Deacon John Tomandl ("Tomandl"), Prison Guard S. Pino ("Pino"), Prison Guard John Doe #1 ("PG John Doe #1"), Sergeant Porten ("Porten"), Sergeant Doe ("Sgt. Doe"), North Yard Supervisor Jay Doe ("Yard Supervisor Jay Doe"), Prison Guard James Doe ("PG James Doe"), Inmate Organization Coordinator ("IOC") Dave Porter ("Porter"), Recreation Program Leader ("RPL") Ron Pitoniak ("Pitoniak"), and RPL Travis Silcox ("Silcox").2 See Am. Compl. at 1, 6-10. The Amended Complaint does not include any claims against DOCCS.3 The facts are set forth as alleged by Plaintiff in his Amended Complaint.
Pursuant to DOCCS' Directive #4202, the DMFVS is responsible for ensuring that all religious programs are carried out in accordance with the established tenets and practices of the faith. Am. Compl. at 26.
In 1991 or 1992, DOCCS hired Ascento Fox ("Fox") as the Senior Rastafari Chaplain. Am. Compl. at 11. While Fox was employed as the Chaplain, DOCCS aligned its policies with the "Lived Tenets Rastafari Ecclesiastical Order." Id. at 51-52. Specifically, with respect to the blessing, handling, preparation, and distribution of food, DOCCS' policy provided that "food is to be prepared by a faith group member and people who are not initiates of the faith should not be allowed to handle, prepare, or distribute the food." Id. at 52. After Fox departed, Annucci "rewrote" the policy to "exclude the sanctity of [Rastafari] food preparation, handling, and distribution."4 Id.
In 2012 and 2013, Annucci, McKoy, Morris, and Guenette began rewriting the tenets of Rastafari order. Am. Compl. at 13-14. Defendants implemented a policy that prevented inmates with "significant knowledge" of the Rastafari tenets and beliefs from acting as "clerks." Id. at 12. By eliminating clerks, Annucci, McKoy, Morris, and Guenette assumed "authority " over the community and assigned chaplains of other denominations to advise the Rastafari community. Id. at 12-14. Defendants allowed "cultural vultures" or "undesirables" such as gang members, homosexuals, and mentally challenged individuals into the "sacred order." Id. at 14. These "cultural vultures" were only interested in receiving special meals and avoiding DOCCS' rules related to the length of their hair. Am. Compl. at 11-12. Annucci also hired Stewart and Rose as Rastafari chaplains in an effort to introduce the views into the Rastafari order. Id. at 15. Additionally, Annucci, McKoy, Morris, and Guenette removed "Negust Day" from the Rastafari practice.5 Id. at 14.
Plaintiff, a practicing Rastafari since birth, filed grievances claiming that Annucci, McKoy, Morris, and Guenette violated the Establishment Clause and unconstitutionally re-wrote and created tenets for Rastrafarians.6 Am. Compl. at 14-15, 16. Plaintiff also filed grievances challenging the decision to remove Negust Day as a High Holy Day.7 Id. at 15. In 2013, Plaintiff filed an Article 78 petition in New York State Supreme Court, Albany County, challenging the removal of Negust Day from the Rastafari practice. Id. at 14. The matter was declared "moot" and Annucci was compelled to reintegrate Negust Day into the practice. Id.
On October 21, 2015, Plaintiff was transferred from the Special Housing Unit ("SHU") at Great Meadow Correctional Facility to the SHU at Auburn C.F. Am. Compl. at 15. Upon arriving at Auburn C.F., Plaintiff wrote to Graham advising that his disciplinary sanctions ended on October 30, 2015. Id. Plaintiff also wrote to Tomandl, the Rastafari staff advisor, and asked to be placed on all Rastafari call-outs, classes, and services8 (including Transfiguration Day). Id. at 16. Plaintiff expected other members of his community to commemorate Transfiguration Day on November 2, 2015. Id. at 11-16. Plaintiff did not receive any response to his correspondence. Am. Compl. at 16-17.
On October 30, 2015, Plaintiff informed SHU staff that his SHU time was complete and presented his disposition sheet as evidence. Am. Compl. at 17. The supervisor informed Plaintiff, "you've pissed somebody off" and, pursuant to Graham's orders, Plaintiff would not be released until the next day. Id. On October 31, 2015, Plaintiff was released from the SHU and transferred to cell D-3-11. Id.
On November 2, 2015, Plaintiff asked Delfavero for permission to attend Transfiguration Day. Am. Compl. at 17. Delfavero and Venditti refused to allow Plaintiff to attend because he was listed "as a Jew" on the D-Block census. Id. at 18. Plaintiff objected to being "branded Jewish," claiming that it endangered Plaintiff's life, health, and well-being.9 Id. at 21. Plaintiff also attempted to explain to Defendants the importance of Transfiguration Day to the practice of his sincerely held Rastafari beliefs. Id. at 19. Plaintiff asked Defendants to contact the Chaplain's Office, but Defendants threatened Plaintiff with a misbehavior report. Am. Compl. at 19. As a result of Defendants' actions, Plaintiff was deprived of the opportunity to practice the highest form of Rastafari worship. Id. at 19-20. Additionally, Defendants' interceded and prevented other inmates from delivering the Transfiguration Day sacramental meal to Plaintiff. Id. at 20; Compl. at 21.
On November 20, 2015, Plaintiff filed a grievance (AUB-68310-15) complaining that Graham retaliated against him and violated his First Amendment religious rights. Am. Compl. at 22; Compl. at 16-19. Specifically, Plaintiff complained that Graham's decision to retain Plaintiff in the SHU for an extra day resulted in Plaintiff being falsely identified as a "Jew" and prevented Plaintiff from observing Transfiguration Day. Id. Graham denied the grievance and Plaintiff appealed to the Central Office Review Committee ("CORC"). Compl. at 24, 27. On March 2, 2016, CORC issued a decision "unanimously" accepting the grievance, in part. Id. at 28. CORC noted that Plaintiff completed his disciplinary sanctions on October 30, 2015 and was moved to another cell on October 31, 2015, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial