Keaton v. N.Y.C. D.O.C. Comm. Joseph Ponte
| Decision Date | 04 August 2017 |
| Docket Number | 16 Civ. 3063 (KPF) |
| Parties | ERIC KEATON, Plaintiff, v. N.Y.C. D.O.C. COMM. JOSEPH PONTE, GRVC WARDEN WINDLEY, DEPUTY WARDEN SECURITY CAPUTO, CAPTAIN VALEJO 15B HOUSING UNIT, BRENDA WHITAKER, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Plaintiff Eric Keaton brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 and New York state law against Defendants New York City Department of Corrections ("DOC") Commissioner Joseph Ponte; George R. Vierno Center ("GRVC") Warden Monica Windley; Deputy Warden Security Caputo (together, the "Supervisory Defendants"); Captain Valejo; and Brenda Whitaker. Plaintiff alleges that his First, Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated when Defendants installed and utilized security video cameras in GRVC's shower and chapel facilities, including when Plaintiff was strip-searched in the latter area, and when at least some of this video footage was sold on the internet by certain Defendants. Plaintiff also alleges that this conduct violates his rights under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000cc to 2000cc-5 ("RLUIPA"), and various state-law doctrines.
Defendants have moved to dismiss Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint, the operative pleading, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and Plaintiff has opposed their motion. For the reasons explained below, Defendants' motion is granted without prejudice to Plaintiff's refiling of a Fourth Amended Complaint within the parameters set forth in this Opinion.
Plaintiff brings this action as a "victim ... caught on cameras" that were installed and used in the "upper level shower area" of "housing unit 15B" in the GRVC and "in the chapel area where detainee[s] [are] stripped searched prior to all court appearances." (TAC 4). Plaintiff alleges that "[t]he defendants allnamed herein" used the footage of the inmates to "essentially promot[e] pornography via websites and internet" and "possibly traffic[] said tapes across state lines to television shows such as [L]ockdown, and 'Inmates Gone Wild[] on Rikers Island.'" (TAC 4). He indicates that Defendants did so under color of state law. (TAC Supp. 3).
Plaintiff breaks out his allegations with regard to specific subsets of Defendants, and also with regard to his injuries and the relief that he seeks. The Court will consider these allegations in the sections that follow.
(Id.; TAC Supp. 2).
Plaintiff indicates that he never "signed any consent forms to the making and production of these video tapes." (TAC 4; see also TAC Supp. 2). He also alleges that these Defendants "attempt to defraud the Government in evading taxes to the transporting and international exporting of '[I]nmates [G]one [W]ild on Rikers Island' pornography tapes." (TAC 4). Finally, Plaintiff alleges thatDefendants' conduct violates "[a] preexisting court order that bans the conspiracy and making of said derogatory tapings and placing of camer[a]s in areas as sensitive as [the] shower and or strip search area." (Id. at 4-5). Plaintiff also expresses his belief that "[g]iven modern technology[,] there is a strong possibility that the [GRVC] Defendants are logging on-line to purchase spyware gadgets and small microscopic video material small enough to smuggle into the facility and tape via camera from the officers station inmate detainee showering on a daily morning noon evening basis." (TAC Supp. 3).
Plaintiff does not attribute any specific conduct to the remainder of the Defendants. He instead alleges that Defendants DOC "Commissioner [Ponte], [GRVC] Warden Monica Windley, Deputy Warden Security Caputo, and Deputy Warden Programs John/Jane Doe are liable under Municipal law in that they could [have], and did not[,] commit themselves to providing enough training and devising policies, and directives that prevent" the "tort acts" Plaintiff alleges. (TAC Supp. 2). Plaintiff further argues that the "unlawful use of cameras" in the shower and strip-search areas "fall[s] below the minimum standards of the Board of Corrections" insofar as the use invades privacy and "defame[s]/slanders" the character of "religion Islam" and "culture of practicing inmate detainee by strip searching inmate in the house of God." (Id.). Plaintiff appears to claim that this "outrageous and unethical conduct" violates the code of professionalism outlined in the DOC employees' manual, or is improperly condoned thereunder. (Id.).
Plaintiff indicates that Defendants' conduct has caused him to suffer an "enormous amo[unt] of emotional stre[ss] and mental anguish." (TAC 5). He claims to suffer insomnia, paranoia, increased anxiety, headaches, stress, and stress-induced body pains and aches. (Id.).
Plaintiff also claims that he has had problems with "employment placement" due to the "defamation of [his] character" that resulted from the shower-scene videos. (TAC 5). In particular, he indicates that the alleged violations of his rights "together create havoc for [Plaintiff] in seeking employment upon his release, social contact with ... community leaders upon his release, and interaction with his family upon release." (TAC Supp. 2). Indeed, Plaintiff alleges that the sole purpose of using the cameras was to "inflict[] emotional shame on the inmate and his family who can potentially mistakenly view this member via video (social media), and or sex tapes." (Id.).
Finally, as alluded to above, Plaintiff indicates that the "unlawful use of cameras" in the shower and strip-search areas "defame[s]/slanders" the character of "religion Islam" and the "culture of practicing inmate detainee by strip searching inmate in the house of God." (TAC Supp. 2). Plaintiff explains that he was "discriminated against" by Defendants' "unlawful and illegal Tort acts" because "video taping in the[] showers and strip search ... is an abomination in the eyes of his higher power, that degrades and shames his walk through said religious beliefs." (TAC Supp. 3).
"As a direct and proximate result of [Defendants'] acts, Plaintiff suffered damages and injuries for which he is entitled to compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial." (TAC Supp. 7). But for his "emotional stress and mental anguish," Plaintiff seeks damages "from each defendant in the amount of one million dollars in their individual and official capacity." (TAC 5). "Plaintiff also seeks pain and suffering damages from each defendant in their individual and official capacity in the amount of one million dollars." (Id.). "Finally[,] Plaintiff seeks punitive damages from each defendant in their individual and official capacity in the amount of three million dollars, for a subtotal of [twenty-]one million dollars." (TAC 5; TAC Supp. 6). Plaintiff argues in this regard that Defendants' "acts were intentional, malicious, reckless, wanton, [and/or] cruel." (TAC Supp. 7).
To the extent that one or more Defendants are "themselves ... able to assert claims of privilege or immunity from liability," Plaintiff believes "[D]efendants Insurances Companies 1-5, are contractually obliga[ted] to pay ... on behalf of the insured [Defendants'] acts up to their policy limits. (TAC Supp. 7). Therefore, "[p]ursuant to Statute 22:655B Plaintiff brings a direct action against [D]efendants [I]nsurance [C]ompanies 1-5, to recover any and allsums they are obligated to pay Plaintiff on behalf of the[ir] insured or to indemnify their insureds." (Id.).2
Plaintiff also asks the Court to issue an "immediate injunction ... banning all cameras focused on [the] shower area ... and strip[] searching in the chapel on camera." (TAC Supp. 6). In the event that the Court issues such an injunction and the DOC Commissioner and GRVC Warden do not comply therewith, Plaintiff asks that they be sanctioned. (Id.). He also asks that the Court ensure "no reprisals [are] taken against Plaintiff" because of his "filing of the [Third Amended Complaint]." (Id.).
This action was initially filed by Plaintiff on behalf of himself and thirty other prisoners detained at Rikers Island on April 25, 2016. (Dkt. #2). On May 18, 2016, then-Chief Judge Loretta Preska directed the then-Plaintiffs to file declarations and pay filing fees or submit in forma pauperis ("IFP") applications and prisoner authorizations. (Dkt. #4). Judge Preska also dismissed then-Plaintiff Dwayne Singleton because he was barred under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) from filing federal civil actions IFP as a prisoner. (Id.).
On July 1, 2016, Judge Preska dismissed an additional eighteen of the then-Plaintiffs under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for their failure to comply with the May 18, 2016 Order. (Dkt. #57). The case was then reassigned to the undersigned. The remaining Plaintiffs were Eric Keaton, Anthony Nelson, Dawud McKelvin, Antoine Garcia, William White, Marvin Bland, Willie Brown, Robert Anderson, Dushawn King, Thirman Caudle, Jose Pizarro, and Rafael Lopez (the "Reassigned Plaintiffs").
On July 5, 2016, this Court...
To continue reading
Request your trial