Jean v. Barber

• Decision Date: 21 July 2011
• Docket Number: 9:09-cv-430
• Parties: GOTFRIED JEAN, Plaintiff, v. C.O. BARBER, Correctional Officer, Auburn Correctional Facility; SGT. CHRISTOPHER, Auburn Correctional Facility; and SUPERINTENDENT GRAHAM, Auburn Correctional Facility, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York

GOTFRIED JEAN, Plaintiff,

v. C.O. BARBER, Correctional Officer,Auburn Correctional Facility; SGT. CHRISTOPHER,Auburn Correctional Facility;and SUPERINTENDENT GRAHAM, AuburnCorrectional Facility, Defendants.

9:09-cv-430

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Dated: July 21, 2011

(MAD/GHL)

APPEARANCES:

GOTFRIED JEAN

00-A-3295

Upstate Correctional Facility

Malone, New York 12953

Plaintiff pro se

OFFICE OF THE NEW YORK

STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL

The Capitol

Attorneys for defendants

OF COUNSEL:

ADRIENNE J. KERWIN, AAG

Mae A. D'Agostino, U.S. District Judge:

MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER

I. INTRODUCTION

On April 10, 2009, plaintiff pro se filed the present action, alleging that he was denied adequate medical care, in violation of his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, when defendants failed to provide him with mental health services prior to a suicide attempt. See Dkt. No. 1. In a Report-Recommendation and Order dated June 28, 2011, Magistrate Judge Lowerecommended that the Court grant defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismiss the complaint. See Dkt. No. 52.¹

Currently before the Court are plaintiff's objections to Magistrate Judge Lowe's June 28, 2011 Report-Recommendation and Order.²

II. BACKGROUND

A. Factual background

In his complaint, plaintiff alleges that his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated during his confinement at the Auburn Correctional Facility ("Auburn C.F."). See Dkt. No. 1 at 4. Specifically, plaintiff alleges that, on December 16, 2006, while in his cell, he told defendant Barber that he wanted to commit suicide. See id. Plaintiff alleges that he then saw defendant Christopher, who told him that there was nothing wrong with him and that he should "do [his] time like a man." See id. at 4-5. Thereafter, plaintiff alleges that defendant Christopher told defendant Barber not to call "any mental health staff." See id. One or two hours later, plaintiff again told defendant Barber that he wanted to commit suicide, but defendant Barber said nothing and walked away. See Dkt. No. 39-3 at 10.

Later that day, plaintiff attempted to commit suicide by "trying to sever [his] arm off with a can top." See Dkt. No. 1 at 5. Plaintiff cut his arm five times. See Dkt. No. 39-3 at 12. At that point, a non-defendant officer arrived and took plaintiff to receive medical attention. See id. at 13. Plaintiff was placed in a cell in the Mental Health Unit ("MHU") at Auburn C.F. and later spoke to a non-defendant individual from the Office of Mental Health ("OMH"). See id. at 14. Thereafter, plaintiff was released to the Special Housing Unit. See id. at 16.

In his complaint, plaintiff alleges that defendants acted with deliberate indifference in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights by leaving him in his cell after he threatened to commit suicide. See Dkt. No. 1 at 5. Plaintiff claims that he saw mental health personnel only after he injured himself. See id. Moreover, plaintiff asserts that his suicide threat and his self-inflicted wounds "are consistent with a serious medical need."

On October 1, 2010, the remaining defendants moved for summary judgment. See Dkt. No. 39. In their motion, defendants argued that (1) plaintiff cannot prevail on his Eighth Amendment claim because defendants were not deliberately indifferent to plaintiff's serious medical needs; and (2) they are entitled to qualified immunity as to each of plaintiff's claims. See Dkt. No. 39-7 at 2-6.

B. Magistrate Judge Lowe's Report-Recommendation and Order

In his Report-Recommendation and Order, Magistrate Judge Lowe found that it was unclear whether plaintiff experienced any previous suicidal thoughts. See Dkt. No. 52 at 6. Citing to his obligation to resolve all ambiguities and draw all reasonable inferences against the non-moving party, however, Magistrate Judge Lowe still recommended that the Court find that aquestion of fact has been raised as to whether plaintiff suffered from a sufficiently serious medical need. See id.

Regarding deliberate indifference, Magistrate Judge Lowe recommended that the Court find that "there is no indication that Defendants intentionally delayed access to medical care. Instead, the record shows that Defendants responded quickly to Plaintiff and took steps to assist him." See id. Specifically, Magistrate Judge Lowe set forth the following in support of his conclusion:

When Plaintiff told Defendant Barber at approximately 7:00 a.m. that he wanted to commit suicide, Defendant Barber "immediately informed the first officer on the shift, who then informed [Defendant] Christopher." Barber Dec. at ¶ 5. The logbook entry confirms that Defendant Barber conveyed this information and that Defendant Christopher was notified at 7:10 a.m. Ex. F. Defendant Christopher saw Plaintiff at approximately 7:50 a.m. Christopher Dec. at ¶ 4. Defendant Barber continued to observe Plaintiff until the conclusion of his shift at 3:00 p.m. Barber Dec. at ¶ 8. Plaintiff cut his arm after Defendant Barber finished his shift. Id. at ¶ 7; Jean Dep. at 10.

See id. at 7.

Thereafter, Magistrate Judge Lowe recommended that the Court dismiss plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment claim because it "overlaps" with the Eighth Amendment claims and, therefore, "'will be subsumed by the Eighth Amendment claim as the Eighth Amendment offers greater protection to prisoners.'" See id. at 8 (quotation and other citation omitted). Finally, Magistrate Judge Lowe declined to reach the qualified immunity issue because plaintiff failed to establish any violations of his constitutional rights. See id. at 8-9

C. Plaintiff's objections to Magistrate Judge Lowe's Report-Recommendation and Order

In his objections to Magistrate Judge Lowe's Report-Recommendation and Order, plaintiff puts forth the following seven arguments:

1) Plaintiff objects to the Report and Recommendation that summary judgment be granted to the Defendants.

2) Plaintiff objects to the deliberate indifference decision rendered by the Judge. There are genuine issues of material fact which include but are not limited to the following:

A) Defendants presented no proof whatsoever that mental health staff was notified.

B) Defendant Barber agrees that Plaintiff notified him on more than one occasion of his suicidal thoughts and need for assistance.

3) Defendant Barber failed to notify mental health staff as is the

policy of DOCS.

4) Defendant Barber made numerous false and contradictory statements as to the monitoring of the Plaintiff. See Affidavit in Opp. of Def. Summary Judgment Motion).

5) Defendant Barber left the Plaintiff in his cell. There is no suicide log book. No monitoring of Plaintiff as per DOCS Directive No. 4101 Section 4A(1), (2), (3), (4).

6) Defendant Sgt. Christopher never reported Plaintiff or referred Plaintiff to mental health.

7) The inference was drawn by the Def. Barber (see Exhibits I4 Mem. of Law).

See Dkt. No. 53 at 2-3. Moreover, plaintiff asserts that he was never taken to a common area for supervision or suicide watch, even after he made defendants aware of his suicidal thoughts. See id. at 3. As such, plaintiff asserts that there are questions of material fact precluding summary judgment. See id.

III. DISCUSSION

A. Standard of review

When a party files specific objections to a magistrate judge's report-recommendation, the district court makes a "de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). However, when a party files "[g]eneral or conclusory objections or objections which merely recite the same arguments [that he presented] to the magistrate judge," the court reviews those recommendations for clear error. O'Diah v. Mawhir, No. 9:08-CV-322, 2011 WL 933846, *1 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2011) (citations and footnote omitted). After the appropriate review, "the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).³

A court may grant a motion for summary judgment only if it determines that there is no genuine issue of material fact to be tried and that the facts as to which there is no such issue warrant judgment for the movant as a matter of law. See Chambers v. TRM Copy Ctrs. Corp., 43 F.3d 29, 36 (2d Cir. 1994) (citations omitted). When analyzing a summary judgment motion, the court "'cannot try issues of fact; it can only determine whether there are issues to be tried.'" Id. at 36-37 (quotation and other citation omitted). Moreover, it is well-settled that a party opposing a motion for summary judgment may not simply rely on the assertions in its pleading. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324 (1986) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c), (e)).

In assessing the record to determine whether any such issues of material fact exist, the court is required to resolve all ambiguities and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. See Chambers, 43 F.3d at 36 (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S.242, 255, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 2513-14, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202 (1986)) (other citations omitted). Where the non-movant either does not respond to the motion or fails to dispute the movant's statement of material facts, the court may not rely solely on the moving party's Rule 56.1 statement; rather, the court must be satisfied that the citations to evidence in the record support the movant's assertions. See Giannullo v. City of N.Y., 322 F.3d 139, 143 n.5 (2d Cir. 2003) (holding that not verifying in the record the assertions in the motion for summary judgment "would derogate the truth-finding functions of the judicial process by substituting convenience for facts").

"[I]n a pro se case, the court must view the submissions by a more lenient standard than that accorded to 'formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.'" Govan v. Campbell, 289 F. Supp. 2d 289, 295 (N.D.N.Y. 2007) (quoting Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S. Ct. 594, 30 L. Ed. 2d 652 (1972)) (other ...