Ifill v. Goord

• Decision Date: 16 January 2012
• Docket Number: 03-CV-355S
• Parties: RICHARD SUNDAY IFILL, Plaintiff, v. GLENN GOORD, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of New York

RICHARD SUNDAY IFILL, Plaintiff,

v.GLENN GOORD, et al., Defendants.

03-CV-355S

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

DATED: January 16, 2012

DECISION AND ORDER

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Richard Sunday Ifill is again before this Court on a motion for summary judgment to determine whether there are genuine issues of material fact in dispute as to his remaining claim that he was forced to sleep in a freezing cold cell without adequate clothing in violation of the Eighth Amendment.¹ Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief and damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986. Presently before this Court is Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment.² For the following reasons, Defendants' motion is granted in part and denied in part.

II. BACKGROUND

A. Facts

The Court assumes the parties' familiarity with the Amended Complaints' underlying facts.³ As to Plaintiff's cold cell claim, the relevant facts are as follows. While an inmate at the Five Points Correctional Facility ("Five Points") Plaintiff was transferred to a Special Housing Unit ("SHU") on October 21, 2002. (Ifill Aff. ¶ 6, June 20, 2011, Docket No. 152.) Defendant Sergeant Stephen Woodward, with the assistance of two or three other correctional officers, then removed all of Plaintiff's clothing and forced him to sleep on the cell floor. (Ifill Aff. ¶ 6; Ifill Dep. 24:5-12, Mar. 23, 2010, Docket No. 145.) Plaintiff alleges that the floor was filthy and freezing cold as a result of cold air coming through open windows, air vents, and the recreation yard door, attached to his cell. (Ifill Aff. ¶ 6.) Although the following day one of the windows was closed, Plaintiff remained subjected to these conditions for the duration of his stay in SHU from October 21, 2002 to January 7, 2003. (Ifill Aff. ¶¶ 6, 14.) Allegedly as a result of a suicide attempt, Plaintiff was transferred to the Mental Health Unit, where he was again forced to sleep naked on a freezing floor for one month. (Ifill Aff. ¶¶ 10, 11.) Following Plaintiff's return to SHU, Defendants would, on a daily basis, open the recreation yard door and allow rain water and snow to enter Plaintiff's cell, as well as, three times per week, activate the showers and flood Plaintiff's cell. (Ifill Aff. ¶ 12.) Plaintiff alleges that various other SHU inmates reported similar complaints. (Ifill Aff. ¶ 13.)

B. Procedural History

As with the underlying facts of this case, this Court assumes familiarity with this case's extensive and complicated procedural history. Relevant to Plaintiff's cold cell claim, Plaintiff's most recent Amended Complaint was filed on January 31, 2005. (Docket No. 63). On September 1, 2005, this Court granted Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the third, fourth, fifth, and sixth causes of action from Plaintiff's Complaint. (Docket No. 75). Plaintiff's first and second causes of action were dismissed on Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment on September 27, 2007. (Docket No. 114.) The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit , by summary order, vacated and remanded this Court's decision as to Plaintiff's claim that he was placed in a freezing cell without adequate clothing while at Five Points. (Docket No. 120.) On May 11, 2011, Defendants moved for summary judgement on this last claim. (Docket No. 81). For the following reasons, Defendant's motion is granted in part and denied in part.

III. DISCUSSION

A. Summary Judgment Standard

Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that summary judgment is warranted where the "pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). A "genuine issue" exists "if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-moving party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 2510, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202 (1986); Ford v. Reynolds, 316 F.3d 351, 354(2d Cir. 2003). A fact is "material" if it "might affect the outcome of the suit under governing law." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. In a case where the non-moving party bears the ultimate burden of proof at trial, the movant may satisfy its burden by pointing to the absence of evidence supporting an essential element of the non-moving party's claim. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1986).

At this stage, the function of the court is not "to weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the matter but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249. Thus, summary judgment is not appropriate if "there is any evidence in the record that could reasonably support a jury's verdict for the non-moving party." Ford, 316 F.3d at 354.

When deciding a motion for summary judgment, a court must view the evidence and the inferences drawn from the evidence "in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion." Addickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 158-59, 90 S. Ct.1598, 1609, 26 L. Ed. 2d 142 (1970). However, the party against whom summary judgment is sought "must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts . . . . [T]he nonmoving party must come forward with specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Caldarola v. Calabrese, 298 F.3d 156, 160 (2d Cir. 2002). "Only when reasonable minds could not differ as to the import of evidence is summary judgment proper." Bryant v. Maffucci, 923 F.2d 979, 982 (2d Cir. 1991).

B. Cold Cell Claim

The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution applies to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, and "prohibits the infliction of 'cruel and unusualpunishments' on those convicted of crimes." Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 297, 11 S.Ct. 2321, 2323, 115 L. Ed. 2d 271 (1991); U.S. Const. amend. VIII. As such, prison conditions and the treatment prisoners receive while incarcerated are subject to scrutiny under the Eighth Amendment. See DeShaney v. Winnebago Cnty Dep't of Social Servs., 489 U.S. 189, 199-200, 109 S. Ct. 998, 1005-1006, 103 L. Ed. 2d 249 (1989). Claims for inhumane conditions of confinement under the Eighth Amendment must demonstrate "(1) a deprivation that is 'objectively, sufficiently serious' that he was denied 'the minimal civilized measure of life's necessities,' and (2) a 'sufficiently culpable state of mind' on the part of the defendant official, such as deliberate indifference to inmate health or safety." Gaston v. Coughlin, 249 F.3d 156, 164 (2d Cir. 2001) (quoting Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834, 11 S. Ct. 1970, 128 L. Ed. 2d 811 (1994)).

The first prong is an objective requirement under which a prisoner must demonstrate that "he has been denied basic human needs, such as food, clothing, shelter, medical care, and reasonable safety, or has been exposed to conditions that pose an unreasonable risk of serious damage to his future health." Williams v. Carbello, 666 F. Supp. 2d 373, 378 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (citing Phelps v. Kapnolas, 308 F.3d 180, 185 (2d Cir. 2002)). In particular, freezing temperatures can constitute the basis of an inhumane conditions of confinement claim. See Gaston, 249 F.3d at 164, Stevens v. City of New York, No. 10 Civ. 5455(PGG), 2011 WL 3251501, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. July 22, 2011) (listing cases).

The second, subjective, prong requires a prisoner to plead facts showing that defendant acted with a "sufficiently culpable state of mind." Phelps, 308 F.3d at 185. As to this prong, "the official must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference."Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834. This requires a plaintiff to show that a defendant acted with the equivalent of criminal reckless indifference. Id. at 839-40.

C. Plaintiff's Request for Further Discovery

At the outset, this Court must address Plaintiff's argument that Defendants' motion should be denied because Plaintiff "has not had a full opportunity to conduct discovery in this case to completely flush out the allegations in his complaint." (Pl.'s Mem. 14, June 6, 2011, Docket No. 153.) The only evidence Plaintiff has submitted in opposition to Defendants' motion is an affidavit that describes the conditions in which he was kept. The affidavit does not, however, go into great detail as to which Defendants committed what acts. Plaintiffs deposition also does not provide any significant clarification, admittedly in part because Plaintiff continually conflated his cold cell claim with other claims that have already been dismissed. Plaintiff claims this lack of specificity is because he has not had "the opportunity to conduct any discovery in this case to determine the extent of each defendant's knowledge." (Ifill Aff. ¶ 16.) His opposing memorandum further states that Plaintiff needs "at the very least, the opportunity to conduct document discovery and the depositions of the named defendants in this action." (Pl.'s Mem. 11 n. 2.) By way of explanation for why he had not conducted discovery, Plaintiff states that as he originally was a pro se plaintiff he lacked the necessary experience to depose defendants or conduct discovery, and that only now has he been assigned counsel whom is willing to conduct discovery on his behalf. (Ifill Aff. ¶ 17.)

A party opposing summary judgment on the ground that it requires further discovery must submit an affidavit showing "(1) what facts are sought . . . and how they are to be obtained, (2) how those facts are reasonably expected to create a genuine issue ofmaterial fact, (3) what effort the affiant has made to obtain them, and (4) why the affiant was unsuccessful in those efforts." Feingold v. Hankin, 91 Fed. Appx. 176, 178 (2d Cir. 2004) (summary order) (quoting Gurary v. Winehouse, 190 F.3d 37, 43 (2d Cir. 1999)). Failure to do so results in...