Houston v. Collerman

• Decision Date: 26 October 2016
• Docket Number: 9:16-CV-1009 (BKS/ATB)
• Citation: Houston v. Collerman, 9:16-CV-1009 (BKS/ATB) (N.D. N.Y. Oct 26, 2016)
• Parties: EDDIE HOUSTON, Plaintiff, v. COLLERMAN, et. al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York

EDDIE HOUSTON, Plaintiff, v. COLLERMAN, et. al., Defendants.

9:16-CV-1009 (BKS/ATB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

October 26, 2016

APPEARANCES:

EDDIE HOUSTON

08-A-3122

Plaintiff, pro se

Mid-State Correctional Facility

P.O. Box 2500

Marcy, New York 13403

BRENDA K. SANNES United States District Judge

AMENDED DECISION AND ORDER¹

I.Introduction

The Clerk has sent to the Court for review a civil rights action filed by pro se plaintiffEddie Houston.Dkt. No. 1("Compl.").Plaintiff has not paid the statutory filing fee for this action and seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis.Dkt. No. 2("IFP Application").

II.IFP Application

"28 U.S.C. § 1915 permits an indigent litigant to commence an action in a federalcourt without prepayment of the filing fee that would ordinarily be charged."Cash v. Bernstein, No. 09-CV-1922, 2010 WL 5185047, at *1(S.D.N.Y.Oct. 26, 2010).Upon review of plaintiff's IFP Application, the Court finds that plaintiff has demonstrated sufficient economic need and filed the inmate authorization form required in the Northern District of New York.Plaintiff's IFP application(Dkt. No. 2) is granted.²

III.Initial Screening

Having found that plaintiff meets the financial criteria for commencing this action in forma pauperis, and because plaintiff seeks relief from an officer or employee of a governmental entity, the Court must consider the sufficiency of the allegations set forth in the complaint in light of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)and1915A.Section 1915(e) of Title 28 of the United States Code directs that, when a plaintiff seeks to proceed in forma pauperis, "the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that - . . . (B) the action . . . (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief."28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).³

Similarly, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, a court must review any "complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity" and must "identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or anyportion of the complaint, if the complaint . . . is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or . . . seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief."28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b);see alsoCarr v. Dvorin, 171 F.3d 115, 116(2d Cir.1999)(per curiam)(noting that Section 1915A applies to all actions brought by prisoners against government officials even when plaintiff paid the filing fee).

Additionally, when reviewing a complaint, the Court may also look to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a pleading which sets forth a claim for relief shall contain, inter alia, "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief."SeeFed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).The purpose of Rule 8"is to give fair notice of the claim being asserted so as to permit the adverse party the opportunity to file a responsive answer, prepare an adequate defense and determine whether the doctrine of res judicata is applicable."Hudson v. Artuz, No. 95 CIV. 4768, 1998 WL 832708, at *1(S.D.N.Y.Nov. 30, 1998)(quotingPowell v. Marine Midland Bank, No. 95-CV-0063 (TJM), 162 F.R.D. 15, 16(N.D.N.Y.June 23, 1995)(other citations omitted)).

A court should not dismiss a complaint if the plaintiff has stated "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face."Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570(2007)."A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged."Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678(2009).While the court should construe the factual allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, "the tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions."Id."Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported bymere conclusory statements, do not suffice."Id.(citingTwombly, 550 U.S. at 555).Rule 8"demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation."Id.Thus, a pleading that contains only allegations which "are so vague as to fail to give the defendants adequate notice of the claims against them" is subject to dismissal.Sheehy v. Brown, 335 F. App'x 102, 104(2d Cir.2009).

IV.Summary of the Complaint⁴

Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which establishes a cause of action for " 'the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws' of the United States."German v. Fed. Home Loan Mortgage Corp., 885 F. Supp. 537, 573(S.D.N.Y.1995)(citingWilder v. Virginia Hosp. Ass'n, 496 U.S. 498, 508(1990)(quoting42 U.S.C. § 1983))(footnote omitted);see alsoMyers v. Wollowitz, No. 6:95-CV-0272(TJM/RWS), 1995 WL 236245, at *2(N.D.N.Y.Apr. 10, 1995)(stating that "§ 1983 is the vehicle by which individuals may seek redress for alleged violations of their constitutional rights."(citation omitted))."Section 1983 itself creates no substantive rights, [but] . . . only a procedure for redress for the deprivation of rights established elsewhere."Sykes v. James, 13 F.3d 515, 519(2d Cir.1993)(citation omitted).The Court will construe the allegations in plaintiff's complaint with the utmost leniency.See, e.g., Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 521(1972)(holding that a pro se litigant's complaint is to be held "to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.").

Plaintiff, an inmate currently being held at Mid-State Correctional Facility("Mid-StateC.F."), asserts claims arising out of his confinement in the custody of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision("DOCCS").The incidents that form the foundation for this complaint occurred while plaintiff was confined at Elmira Correctional Facility ("Elmira C.F.").See Compl., generally.On July 13, 2013, plaintiff filed a grievance claiming that defendants Officer Copestick ("Copestick") and Officer Schieber ("Schieber") harassed him, on more than one occasion, about his medication.Seeid. at 6;seeDkt. No. 1-1at 3-5.On August 5, 2013, after an investigation into the allegations, the Superintendent of Elmira C.F. denied plaintiff's grievance.SeeDkt. No. 1-1at 5.

On September 30, 2013, plaintiff was on his way to the masjid to participate in Ramadan when he was stopped by Copestick and Schieber and directed to the wall for a pat-frisk.SeeCompl.at 5.While plaintiff's hands were on the wall, Schieber "violently kicked" his legs from underneath him.Seeid.Schieber "stomped" on plaintiff's ankles while Copestick attempted to choke plaintiff.Seeid.During the assault, the officers yelled racial slurs.Seeid.Defendant Sergeant Collerman ("Collerman") watched the officers beat plaintiff.SeeCompl.at 5.As a result of the attack, plaintiff's eyeglasses were broken, his ankle was swollen, and he could not walk.Seeid. at 5, 9.

At approximately 5:00 p.m., plaintiff received medical treatment for complaints of pain in his right big toe and swelling in his right foot.SeeDkt. No. 1-1at 19.Plaintiff received Motrin and was advised to follow with sick call requests, if needed.Seeid.A "use offorce/inmate injury" report was compiled.⁵Seeid.At approximately 7:15 p.m., plaintiff, a diabetic, told a medical provider that he had not received his daily "medication."Seeid.The provider ordered various medications to be delivered to plaintiff on a daily basis.Seeid.

On October 1, 2013, plaintiff received a misbehavior report charging him with assault on staff and with refusing a direct order and search.⁶SeeCompl.at 5.On the same day, plaintiff was placed in confinement in the Special Housing Unit ("SHU").SeeDkt. No. 1-1at 19.On October 3, 2013, plaintiff attended a Hearing regarding the misbehavior report.⁷SeeDkt. No. 1-1at 10.On November 3, 2013, plaintiff received a copy of the hearing disposition dismissing all charges.SeeDkt. No. 1-1at 11;Dkt. No. 1at 5.

On November 3, 2013, plaintiff was released from the SHU.SeeCompl.at 5.While plaintiff was in the SHU, he was unable to participate in Ramadan, denied religious meals, denied parole, and excluded from mental health programs.Seeid.

Construed liberally, the complaint contains the following claims: (1) Copestick and Schieber violated plaintiff's Eighth Amendment rights with use of excessive force (Fifth, Fifteenth, Twentieth, and Twenty-Second Causes of Action ); (2) Collerman failed to protect plaintiff from the assault in violation of plaintiff's Eighth Amendment rights(Fifteenth Cause ofAction); (3)defendants were deliberately indifferent to plaintiff's serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment(Sixth, Seventh, and Fifteenth Causes of Action);(4) Copestick and Schieber retaliated against plaintiff in violation of plaintiff's First Amendment rights(Twenty-First Cause of Action); (5)plaintiff's First Amendment rights to religious freedom were violated (Fourth Cause of Action); (6)plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process and equal protection were violated (First, Second, Third, Sixth, Sixteenth, and Eighteenth Causes of Action); (7)defendants failed to investigate plaintiff's complaints and follow grievance procedures (Tenth and Thirteenth Causes of Action); (8) perjury claims against officers who filed the misbehavior report (Eleventh and Seventeenth Causes of Action); and (9) supervisory claims against DOCCS (Eighth, Ninth, Twelfth, Fourteenth, Nineteenth, Twenty-Third, Twenty-Fourth, Twenty-Fifth, and Twenty Sixth Causes of Action).See Compl., generally.Plaintiff seeks...