Ojo v. United States
| Decision Date | 19 February 2020 |
| Docket Number | 16-CV-4112 (MKB) (LB) |
| Parties | OLUKAYODE DAVID OJO, Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, MDC LIEUTENANT FRANK MALDONADO, ERIC ABDELLAH, STEDMAN FERGUSON, CLARENCE ROSS, JOHN DOES #1-4, and JANE DOE #1, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
Plaintiff Olukayode David Ojo, proceeding pro se, commenced the above-captioned action on July 25, 2016, against Defendants the United States of America and Metropolitan Detention Center ("MDC") correctional officers Frank Maldonado, Eric Abdellah, Stedman Ferguson, Clarence Ross, Veronica Metzger, and John Does #1-4 (collectively, the "Officer Defendants"). (Compl., Docket Entry No. 1.) Plaintiff asserts various claims against the United States pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2671 et seq. (the "FTCA"). ( Plaintiff also asserts a number of claims against the Officer Defendants, and seeks relief pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). (Id. ¶¶ 183-245.)
On September 21, 2018, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment. (Defs. Mot. to Dismiss or for Summ. J. ("Defs. Mot."), Docket Entry No. 59.) On April 8, 2019, the Court referred Defendants' motion to Magistrate Judge Lois Bloom for a report and recommendation. (Order dated Apr. 8, 2019.) By report and recommendation dated August 15, 2019, Judge Bloom recommended that the Court dismiss the Amended Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim (the "R&R"). (R&R, Docket Entry No. 75.) Plaintiff timely filed objections, and Defendants have responded.1 (Pl. Obj. to the R&R ("Pl. Obj."), Docket Entry No. 80; Defs. Opp'n to Pl. Obj. ("Defs. Opp'n"), Docket Entry No. 84.)
For the reasons set forth below, the Court adopts the R&R in its entirety and grants Defendants' motion to dismiss.2
The Court assumes the truth of the factual allegations in the Complaint for the purposes of this Memorandum and Order.
Plaintiff's claims arise in connection with his incarceration at the MDC, a federal detention center operated by the Federal Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") in Brooklyn, New York, where he was serving a thirty-seven-month sentence imposed on February 27, 2014 by a federal district judge in the Eastern District of New York. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 26, 48.) Plaintiff alleges that he was eligible for good conduct time ("GCT") credit based on his compliance with disciplinaryregulations, and that, based on his GCT credit, he should have completed his sentence by Saturday, March 1, 2014. (Id. ¶¶ 50, 58.) Plaintiff further alleges that, because of the "BOP policy for weekend release purposes," he should have been released on Friday, February 28, 2014, but the BOP employees who "did the calculation of [Plaintiff's] release date made a serious error in the release date calculation" and "wrongfully set an untimely [release] date of Saturday, March 15, 2014." (Id. ¶¶ 58, 61.)
On March 14, 2014, at around 8:00 AM, Plaintiff lost access to his Trust Fund Limited Inmate Computer System ("TRULINCS") account, (id. ¶ 67), by which time Plaintiff alleges "BOP . . . had administratively released and/or passed [a] message for the release of [Plaintiff] to the MDC," (id. ¶ 68). At around the same time, John Doe #1, a correctional officer, informed Plaintiff that "he had been set free to go home," and told him to "'pack up' his properties and leave." (Id. ¶¶ 69-70.) Following John Doe #1's instructions, Plaintiff "packed up" his cell, brought his sheets and prison uniforms to the laundry room, and got dressed in "his own personal clothes that he bought from commissary." (Id. ¶¶ 71-74.) Once Plaintiff was ready to leave his unit, John Doe #1 "suddenly insisted that [Plaintiff] should go and put on the prison uniform," and prevented Plaintiff from leaving the unit. (Id. ¶¶ 75-77.) John Doe #1 then called two additional correctional officers, Metzger and John Doe #2, to the scene, who also told Plaintiff to put his prison uniform back on and prevented Plaintiff from leaving the unit. (Id. ¶¶ 78-81.) Plaintiff went to the laundry room to get his uniform but it was already in the washing machine. (Id. ¶ 82.) Metzger and John Doe #2 then instructed him to "borrow a prison uniform from another inmate," which Plaintiff attempted to do but was unsuccessful. (Id. ¶¶ 84-87.)
Plaintiff alleges that John Does #1 and #2 and Metzger then "conspired together, spoke and gave [a] sign to each other and suddenly invited some other colleagues in the facility" to theunit, at which point Maldonado, Abdellah, Ferguson, Ross, and John Doe #3 appeared in the unit. (Id. ¶¶ 90-91.) John Doe #1 pointed at Plaintiff and "said that was the guy," and then Abdellah, Ferguson, Ross, and John Doe #3 "approached" Plaintiff, "forcibly snatched" his radio, and "directed him to a dark spot around the exit" of the unit. (Id. ¶¶ 92-94.) While in the "dark spot," two of the officers "forcibly and excessively twisted [Plaintiff's] hands backward and forcibly placed handcuffs on his wrists." (Id. ¶ 95.) The handcuffs "were excessively tightened," causing Plaintiff "discomfort," but when Plaintiff "complain[ed] of pain[]" from the "excessive tightness of the handcuffs," Abdellah, Ferguson, Ross, and John Doe #3 "mock[ed]" him. (Id. ¶¶ 96-97.)
Abdellah, Ferguson, Ross, and John Doe #3 then brought Plaintiff to the Segregated Housing Unit (the "SHU"), while "shower[ing] [Plaintiff with] physical and verbal abuse," where Plaintiff was "locked in [a] single cell without [a] seat, bed, toilet and/or water," and that was "very cold." (Id. ¶¶ 98-100.) Another officer, John Doe #8, then arrived at the cell where Plaintiff was being held and "directed [Plaintiff] to remove his clothes," which John Doe #8 then took. (Id. ¶ 101.) John Doe #8 "directed [Plaintiff] to squat, raise his arms, and open his mouth . . . searching [Plaintiff]." (Id. ¶ 102.) Plaintiff was "left naked . . . for a substantial period of time" before John Doe #8 returned and gave Plaintiff an orange uniform, designated for inmates who have committed disciplinary infractions. (Id. ¶¶ 103, 106.) While Plaintiff was left naked in the cell, he could be seen by "male and female officers that passed by . . . caus[ing] [Plaintiff] embarrassment[] and emotional trauma." (Id. ¶ 104.)
At around 11:00 AM, Plaintiff was taken out of the cell, brought to the "booking section" of MDC, and eventually released to two of the Officer Defendants. (Id. ¶¶ 107-08.) Plaintiff contends that "because of the correctional officers' retaliatory intent," he did not receive hisproperty, "including legal documents, a big expensive Bible, reading lamp and some items from commissary." (Id. ¶¶ 109-11.)
On July 20, 2015, Plaintiff filed an administrative claim with BOP (the "July 2015 Claim"), alleging, inter alia, that he had been detained in the MDC SHU for three hours past his approved release time of 8:00 AM on March 14, 2014, where he had been left naked for a substantial period of time, and that some of his property was not returned to him. (July 2015 Claim 33-39, annexed to Am. Compl., Docket Entry No. 26.)3 On May 8, 2018, Plaintiff filed another administrative claim with BOP (the "May 2018 Claim"), alleging that based on his GCT credit, his federal prison sentence should have ended on February 27, 2014, and that instead he was detained unlawfully at MDC until March 14, 2014. (May 2018 Claim 39-40, annexed to Pl. Opp'n to Def. Mot. ("Pl. Opp'n"), Docket Entry No. 55.)
Plaintiff alleges that he "did not violate any rule or regulation . . . that could justify his arrest, assault, battery, detention and/or punishment," and was never charged with any "crime, infraction, or violation . . . before, during [or] after the incident." (Id. ¶¶ 112-13.) Plaintiff further alleges that Maldonado, Abdellah, Ferguson, Ross, John Does #1-4, and Metzger "became aware of approximately [ninety] pages [of] previous grievances and/or a civil rights action filed by [Plaintiff] against[]other correctional officers and the facility's dentist," and that the Officer Defendants' actions were "maliciously motivated and . . . taken in furtherance of their conspiracy to retaliate against [Plaintiff]." (Id. ¶ 114.)
Plaintiff asserts claims under the FTCA against the United States for false imprisonment, false arrest, assault, battery, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, andnegligence. (Id. ¶¶ 120-82.) In addition, Plaintiff asserts claims for relief pursuant to Bivens against the Officer Defendants for false arrest, false imprisonment, assault, battery, and failure to intervene, as well as violations of Plaintiff's rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. (Id. ¶¶ 183-245.) Plaintiff alleges that as a result of Defendants' actions, he has experienced "pain and suffering, mental anguish . . . embarrassment, humiliation, loss of enjoyment . . . damage to his mental state and other intangible damages," and that he has incurred and will continue to incur medical expenses. (Id. ¶ 119.) Plaintiff seeks money damages and declaratory relief. (Id. at 29.)
Judge Bloom recommended that the Court grant Defendants' motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint. (See generally R&R.)
i. Fourteen-day delay in release from MDC
Judge Bloom recommended that the Court dismiss Plaintiff's FTCA claim for false imprisonment arising out of the alleged fourteen-day delay in his release from MDC because Plaintiff failed to exhaust his claim and the claim is time-barred. (Id. at 8-9.) Judge Bloom found that Plaintiff's May 2018 Claim alleging a fourteen-day delay in release was untimely and that the July 2015 Claim "made no mention of a [fourteen]-day delay." (Id. at 8.) Because Plaintiff's claim accrued on March 14, 2014, the day he...
To continue reading
Request your trial