Jones v. D.O.C.C.S.

• Decision Date: 11 May 2021
• Docket Number: 20-CV-1682-LJV
• Parties: MICHAEL JONES, Plaintiff, v. D.O.C.C.S., et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of New York

MICHAEL JONES, Plaintiff, v. D.O.C.C.S., et al., Defendants.

20-CV-1682-LJV

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

May 11, 2021

ORDER

INTRODUCTION

The pro se plaintiff, Michael Jones, is a prisoner currently confined at the Wende Correctional Facility ("Wende"). He asserts claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and alleges that the defendants violated his constitutional rights while he was incarcerated at Great Meadows Correctional Facility ("Great Meadows") and Wende. Docket Item 1. He also has moved to proceed in forma pauperis (that is, as a person who should have the prepayment of the ordinary filing fee waived because he cannot afford it). Docket Item 7. And he has requested a protective order and to be transferred to the "Alternative Protection Programming Unit" at Clinton Correctional Facility ("Clinton"). Docket Item 9; see also Docket Item 1 at 11.

Because Jones meets the statutory requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) and has filed the required authorization and certification, Docket Item 7, the Court grants his motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Therefore, under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(a), the Court screens the complaint.

For the following reasons, Jones's claims related to his confinement at Great Meadows are severed and transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York. As for Jones's claims arising out of his confinement at Wende, some may proceed, some are dismissed under sections 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A, and some will be dismissed under those same sections unless he files an amended complaint correcting the deficiencies addressed below. His requests for a protective order and transfer are denied without prejudice.

DISCUSSION

Section 1915 "provide[s] an efficient means by which a court can screen for and dismiss legally insufficient claims." Abbas v. Dixon, 480 F.3d 636, 639 (2d Cir. 2007) (citing Shakur v. Selsky, 391 F.3d 106, 112 (2d Cir. 2004)). The court shall dismiss a complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity, or an officer or employee of a governmental entity, if the court determines that the action (1) fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or (2) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)-(2).

Generally, the court will afford a pro se plaintiff an opportunity to amend or to be heard prior to dismissal "unless the court can rule out any possibility, however unlikely it might be, that an amended complaint would succeed in stating a claim." Abbas, 480 F.3d at 639 (citation omitted); see also Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99, 112 (2d Cir. 2000) ("A pro se complaint is to be read liberally. Certainly the court should not dismiss without granting leave to amend at least once when a liberal reading of the complaint gives any indication that a valid claim might be stated." (quoting Gomez v. USAA Fed.Sav. Bank, 171 F.3d 794, 795 (2d Cir. 1999))). But leave to amend pleadings may be denied when any amendment would be "futile." Id.

I. SCREENING THE COMPLAINT

In evaluating a complaint, the court accepts all factual allegations as true and draws all inferences in the plaintiff's favor. See Larkin v. Savage, 318 F.3d 138, 139 (2d Cir. 2003) (per curiam); King v. Simpson, 189 F.3d 284, 287 (2d Cir. 1999). "Specific facts are not necessary," and the plaintiff "need only 'give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.'" Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 293 (2007) (alteration in original) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)); see also Boykin v. Keycorp, 521 F.3d 202, 213 (2d Cir. 2008) ("[E]ven after Twombly, dismissal of a pro se claim as insufficiently pleaded is appropriate only in the most unsustainable of cases."). Although "a court is obliged to construe [pro se] pleadings liberally, particularly when they allege civil rights violations," McEachin v. McGuinnis, 357 F.3d 197, 200 (2d Cir. 2004), even pleadings submitted pro se must meet the notice requirements of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, see Wynder v. McMahon, 360 F.3d 73, 76 (2d Cir. 2004).

Jones has sued the defendants for violations of his First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. A liberal reading of the complaint tells the following story.¹

Jones was confined at Great Meadows between July 2019 and February 2020. Docket Item 1 at 7. During that time, Jones was "denied [his] right to send mail to his family" and denied his legal mail, id. at 7, 10; had his mail and other property stolen by prison officials, id. at 7, 12-13; was "denied proper medical care for [his] legs and denied hearing aids to assist [his] hearing," id. at 7; was "harassed and discriminated against because of" his race, religion, and sexual orientation, id. at 7, 13; and was "confined to [the] SHU for over 30 days for no reason" after being denied due process at a disciplinary hearing, id. at 7-8.

In February 2020, Jones was transferred to Wende. Id. at 8. While at Wende, Jones was "punished and harassed for [his] political beliefs, [and] discriminated against for being a [d]emocrat." Id. For example, on November 5, 2020, Officer Hyland "harassed [Jones] for cheering for Joe Biden" in the presidential election. Id. at 14. Hyland "cursed [Jones] out and told [him] to shut the f[***] up because of [his] cheering [B]iden." Id. at 89. Hyland "then went in [Jones's] cell and destroyed [Jones's] property [because of Jones's] political beliefs." Id. Jones, who is Black, bisexual, and Jewish, also was discriminated against and harassed by prison staff because of his race, sexual orientation, and religion. Id. at 8, 11.

Jones contracted COVID-19 at Wende "because of [Wende's] . . . mishandling of [the virus]." Id. at 16. While Jones was sick, he was "placed in a cell full of [anotherprisoner's] fecal matter." Id. Jones "was forced to clean up this fecal matter," and "one of the officers said [to Jones that] he hope[d Jones] died in the cell."² Id.

Jones also "had [an] open bullet wound during the time [he] had [COVID-19, which] became infected." Id. at 68. Jones "was not given the proper medical attention" to treat the bullet wound. Id. He "asked for help[, but] all [the nurse] could do was bring[ Jones's] cleaning cell side, [and he] needed medication." Id. And while Jones was sick, "for weeks [his] mail would not leave the facility," and he was denied "access to the courts and . . . access to the law library." Id. at 9.

At one point, Jones had a disciplinary hearing. Id. at 70-71. The hearing officer, D.S.P. Gabel,³ "was not impartial and [she] participated in the investigation." Id. Gabel "asked questions to a witness that [Jones] did not ask[,] and after this witness was questioned by [Gabel, she] refused to call [Jones's] other[] witness." Id.

Jones then was confined in the SHU for more than a month.⁴ Id. at 15. He did not have a mattress or sheets and instead was forced to sleep on either the metal bedframe or "on a ball of cotton." Id. "Hyland wrote [Jones] a misbehavior report for destroying the mattress, [but] this misbehavior report was dismissed because it was a lie." Id. Although the report made staff aware that Jones was sleeping on either the frame or a "cotton ball," he still "was not given a mattress." Id. "This living condition caused [Jones] los[s] of sleep, problems with impulse control, [d]ifficulty with concentration and thinking, panic attacks and hallucinations[, and] back pain." Id.

Moreover, while in the SHU, Jones was "not [] afforded the opportunity to wear or use [his] leg braces or [his] medical boots," which caused him "severe pain in [his] legs and feet." Id. at 90. Jones asked to go to physical therapy and for replacement hearing aids—both of which were medically necessary—but his requests were denied. Id. at 88.

Wende officials also violated Jones's right to due process when they decided his property claim and destroyed his property "over [and] over." Id. at 11. The Wende staff has been harassing Jones ever since he filed a Prison Rape Elimination Act complaint against the prison. Id. at 96.

Jones "still ha[s] more to add to [his] claim," but he ran out of paper. Id. at 9. He does not feel safe at Wende, and he has asked his Court to issue a protective order and contact "movement and control in Albany and have them place" him in a special program at Clinton. Docket Item 9 at 1; Docket Item 1 at 11.

II. SECTION 1983 CLAIMS

"To state a valid claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the plaintiff must allege that the challenged conduct (1) was attributable to a person acting under color of state law, and (2) deprived the plaintiff of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States." Whalen v. County of Fulton, 126 F.3d 400, 405 (2d Cir.1997) (citing Eagleston v. Guido, 41 F.3d 865, 875-76 (2d Cir. 1994)). "Section 1983 itself creates no substantive rights; it provides only a procedure for redress for the deprivation of rights established elsewhere." Sykes v. James, 13 F.3d 515, 519 (2d Cir. 1993) (citing City of Oklahoma City v. Tuttle, 471 U.S. 808, 816 (1985)).

To establish liability against a prison official under section 1983, "a plaintiff must plead and prove 'that each Government-official defendant, through the official's own individual actions, has violated the Constitution.'" Tangreti v. Bachmann, 983 F.3d 609, 618 (2d Cir. 2020) (citing Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676). It is not enough to assert that the defendant is a "link[] in the prison['s] chain of command." See McKenna v. Wright, 386 F.3d 432, 437 (2d Cir. 2004). Moreover, the theory of respondeat superior is not available in a section 1983 action. See Hernandez v. Keane, 341 F.3d 137, 144 (2d Cir. 2003). Instead, "[t]he violation must be established against the supervisory official directly." Tangreti, 983 F.3d at 618.

A. Great Meadows Claims

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), a civil action...