Little v. Mun. Corp.

• Decision Date: 30 September 2014
• Docket Number: Case No. 12–CV–5851 (KMK).
• Parties: Clifton LITTLE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

?51 F.Supp.3d 473

Clifton LITTLE, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION et al., Defendants.

Case No. 12–CV–5851 (KMK).

United States District Court, S.D. New York.

Signed Sept. 29, 2014
Filed Sept. 30, 2014

Motion granted.

[51 F.Supp.3d 481]

Clifton Little, Romulus, NY, Pro Se Plaintiff.

Anthony Romero, Auburn, NY, Pro Se Plaintiff.

Timothy Beckman, Bronx, NY, Pro Se Plaintiff.
Terry Patterson, East Elmhurst, NY, Pro Se Plaintiff.
Jalah Knight, East Elmhurst, NY, Pro Se Plaintiff.
Martin Concepcion, East Elmhurst, NY, Pro Se Plaintiff.
David Alan Rosinus, Jr., Esq., New York City Law Department, New York, NY, for Defendants.
OPINION & ORDER
KENNETH M. KARAS, District Judge:

Plaintiffs Clifton Little, Anthony Romero, Timothy Beckman, Terry Patterson, Jalah Knight, and Martin Concepcion (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), proceeding pro se, bring this Action against Municipal Corporation, The City of New York (“the City”), Commissioner of the New York City Department of Correction Dora B. Schriro (“Commissioner Schriro”), Warden Ardo, Warden Duffy, Captain Bernadette Brown (“Brown”), Correction Officer Mikell Spears (“Spears”), and Captain Elio Elias (“Elias”), (collectively, “Defendants”), for injuries that Plaintiffs allegedly received while incarcerated at the George R. Vierno Center at Rikers Island. Defendants move to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). For the reasons stated below, Defendants' Motion is granted.

I. BACKGROUND A. Factual Background

Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint contains a litany of grievances related to the conditions of Plaintiffs' confinement and incidents that occurred while they were confined. These allegations appear to fall into six categories:

First, Plaintiffs allege excessive confinement. They claim to have been “illegally locked in their cells for excessive amounts of” time. (Am. Compl. 6.) ¹ Plaintiffs further claim that they were deprived food

[51 F.Supp.3d 482]

during some of these periods of confinement. ( Id. at 6–9.) Specifically, on May 14, 2012, Plaintiffs claim to have been locked in their cells “for an excessive amount of hours without being fed.” ( Id. at 8.) Plaintiffs also claim to have been confined to their cells for a period of nearly 24 hours, from 9:07 p.m. on July 11, 2012 until approximately 8:00 p.m. on July 12, 2012. ( Id. at 9.) During this lock-in, Plaintiffs allege to have suffered verbal abuse and headaches and were fed “whatever DOC personnel felt like.” ( Id.) In addition, Little claims to have been placed in pre-hearing detention during an investigation into an August 11, 2012 incident and that he was held from August 11 to 18, 2012, before being released. ( Id. at 10–11.) During this detention, Little alleges that he was verbally abused, threatened, and sprayed with a chemical agent that caused burning to his eyes and shortness of breath. ( Id. at 10.)

Second, Plaintiffs allege unsanitary housing conditions. Plaintiffs Little, Romero, and Patterson claim that cells in which they were confined flooded with sewage on March 3, 2012. ( Id. at 7.) These three Plaintiffs claim to have been confined in the flooded cells from 11:30 a.m. until 8:00 p.m., forced to walk through the effluent, and then locked out of their cells. ( Id.) Plaintiffs also allege that, in June 2012, they were not permitted have their linens—specifically “pillowcases, towels, wash cloth[ ]s, and sheets”—cleaned or exchanged, which caused Plaintiffs to suffer skin irritation and loss of hair. ( Id. at 7, 20.)

Third, Plaintiffs allege that they were effectively or functionally denied access to the prison law library. Plaintiffs claim that simultaneous scheduling of inmates' access to the law library, sick call, chaplain, social services, legal aid, and prisoner grievance office forced Plaintiffs to “choose which to attend.” ( Id. at 8.) Plaintiffs also claim that they were denied access to the law library outright on July 10, 2012, ( id. at 9, 21), that they were only given a half hour of law library access the next day and, that when they complained, Plaintiffs were told that they “need[ed] to stop coming down here to have gang meetings,” ( id. at 9), which Plaintiffs deny having. Plaintiffs also allege that the prison lacks a dedicated word processor for prisoner use. ( Id. at 21.)

Fourth, Plaintiffs claim that they are being subjected to disparate treatment and “classified based on who they associate with” in violation of their right to due process. ( Id. at 20.) They claim to have been “re-classified,” given different IDs, and placed on a Security Risk Group (“SRG”) list, fired from their work assignments, forced to wear lime green prison clothes on visiting floors, subjected to “intense discriminatory search[e]s” in which personal property was taken or destroyed, and re-housed, all “without investigation.” ( Id. at 6.)

Fifth, Plaintiffs complain about being subject to strip searches and searches of their cells. Plaintiffs Little, Patterson, and Knight allege that on July 5 and 12, 2012, they and other inmates on a “[t]arget list” had their cells searched and were forced to undergo strip searches, while the entire facility was placed on lock down. ( Id. at 8.) Little alleges that his cell was searched again on August 4, 2012, and that his “belongings [were] thrown on the floor,” his clothes placed in the toilet, and other items—including legal paperwork—were removed from his cell without a receipt documenting the seizure. ( Id. at 9–10.)

Finally, Little alleges that, on February 13, 2012 at approximately 6:45 p.m., he was “repeatedly punched, kicked, and slapped” by members of prison staff “for close to 20

[51 F.Supp.3d 483]

minutes” and then restrained. ( Id. at 11.) Little received medical attention, including X-rays for the resulting injuries, but claims to have lasting marks and numbness from this incident. ( Id. at 11–12.)

B. Procedural Background

On July 30, 2012, Plaintiffs filed their Complaint. ( See Dkt. No. 2.) Pursuant to the Court's May 6, 2013 Order, ( see Dkt. No. 48), Little attempted to file an Amended Complaint on July 15, 2013, though none of the other Plaintiffs signed this document, ( see Dkt. No. 50). The Court construes this Amended Complaint to allege violations of the Eighth and the Fourteenth Amendments, see United States v. Georgia, 546 U.S. 151, 157, 126 S.Ct. 877, 163 L.Ed.2d 650 (2006) (noting that “the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Eighth Amendment's guarantee against cruel and unusual punishment” (citing Louisiana ex rel. Francis v. Resweber, 329 U.S. 459, 463, 67 S.Ct. 374, 91 L.Ed. 422 (1947) (plurality opinion))), which violations would entitle Plaintiff to damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In addition, the Court construes the Amended Complaint to allege violations of Plaintiffs' right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment, state law, and New York administrative regulations.

Plaintiffs claim to have suffered “Mental Anguish, Stomach Pains, dizz[i]ness, headache[s], nausea, emotional depression, emotional distress, exhaustion, chest pains, def[a]mation of character, verbal abuse, starvation, discrimination, [and] los[s] of weight ... [and] hair” due to the alleged violations. (Am. Compl. at 14, 24.) By way of remedy, Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief against all Defendants, compensatory damages in the amount of $5,000,000 “against each of the defendants,” and punitive damages in the amount of $50,000,000 “against each of the defendants.” ( Id. at 24.)

Defendants filed a Motion To Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, along with a Memorandum of Law in Support of their Motion, on November 12, 2013. ( See Dkt. Nos. 56, 57.) Pursuant to the Court's October 9, 2013 Scheduling Order, Plaintiffs were to file a response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss by December 12, 2013, however Plaintiffs have not yet done so. ( See Dkt. No. 55.) Defendants' Motion and supporting Memorandum were served upon Plaintiffs by mail, ( see Dkt. No. 58), and there is no indication that the Plaintiffs failed to receive these documents. To the contrary, Little subsequently filed a change of address with the Court in which he acknowledged receipt of Defendants' Motion. ( See Dkt. No. 60.) More than eight months have passed since Defendants served their Motion, yet Plaintiffs have not filed a response. Accordingly, the Court will decide the Motion on the papers received to date.

II. DISCUSSION A. Standard of Review

The Supreme Court has held that “[w]hile a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff's obligation to provide the ‘grounds' of his [or her] ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) (third alteration in original) (citations omitted). Instead, the Supreme Court has emphasized that “[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level,” id., and that “once a claim has been stated adequately, it may be supported

[51 F.Supp.3d 484]

by showing any set of facts consistent with the allegations in the complaint,” id. at 563, 127 S.Ct. 1955. A plaintiff must allege “only enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955. But if a plaintiff has “not nudged [his or her] claims across the line from conceivable to plausible, the[ ] complaint must be dismissed.” Id.; see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (“Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief will ... be a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense. But where the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere...