Quartararo v. Catterson, No. 93-CV-4059 (JS).

CourtUnited States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York)
Citation917 F. Supp. 919
Decision Date25 January 1996
PartiesMichael QUARTARARO, Plaintiff, v. James M. CATTERSON, District Attorney of Suffolk County; Mark Cohen, Chief Assistant District Attorney; Demetri Jones, Donald Byrnes, and Michael Miller, Assistant District Attorneys; Timothy Mazzei and William Keahon, former Assistant District Attorneys, as past and present employees of the Suffolk County District Attorney's Office; New York State Division of Parole, Paul Russi, Chairman, Martin Horn, Executive Director of the New York State Department of Parole, William K. Altschuller, Director of the Appeals Unit of the New York State Department of Parole, Patrick Hoy, Area Supervisor, Philip Deluca, and John Callender, Senior Parole Officers; Gerald Burke, Thomas Biddle, Maria Rivera Buchanan, Leo Levy, J. Kevin McNiff, Anthony Umina, Barbara Treen, Daniel Tauriello, George King, Julian Rose, Parole Commissioners, and others, as employees of the Division of Parole; the New York State Department of Correctional Services, Thomas A. Coughlin, Commissioner, James F. Recore, Director of Temporary Release Programs, Brian Fischer, Superintendent of Queensboro Correctional Facility, Enoc Esteves, Deputy Superintendent, William Lester, Senior Counselor and Temporary Release Chairman, Rudolph F. Jeffrey, Correction Counselor, as employees of the Department of Correctional Services; the New York State Commission of Correction, William G. McMahon, former Commissioner, Defendants.
Docket NumberNo. 93-CV-4059 (JS).

917 F. Supp. 919

Michael QUARTARARO, Plaintiff,
v.
James M. CATTERSON, District Attorney of Suffolk County; Mark Cohen, Chief Assistant District Attorney; Demetri Jones, Donald Byrnes, and Michael Miller, Assistant District Attorneys; Timothy Mazzei and William Keahon, former Assistant District Attorneys, as past and present employees of the Suffolk County District Attorney's Office; New York State Division of Parole, Paul Russi, Chairman, Martin Horn, Executive Director of the New York State Department of Parole, William K. Altschuller, Director of the Appeals Unit of the New York State Department of Parole, Patrick Hoy, Area Supervisor, Philip Deluca, and John Callender, Senior Parole Officers; Gerald Burke, Thomas Biddle, Maria Rivera Buchanan, Leo Levy, J. Kevin McNiff, Anthony Umina, Barbara Treen, Daniel Tauriello, George King, Julian Rose, Parole Commissioners, and others, as employees of the Division of Parole; the New York State Department of Correctional Services, Thomas A. Coughlin, Commissioner, James F. Recore, Director of Temporary Release Programs, Brian Fischer, Superintendent of Queensboro Correctional Facility, Enoc Esteves, Deputy Superintendent, William Lester, Senior Counselor and Temporary Release Chairman, Rudolph F. Jeffrey, Correction Counselor, as employees of the Department of Correctional Services; the New York State Commission of Correction, William G. McMahon, former Commissioner, Defendants.

No. 93-CV-4059 (JS).

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

January 25, 1996.


917 F. Supp. 920
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
917 F. Supp. 921
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
917 F. Supp. 922
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
917 F. Supp. 923
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
917 F. Supp. 924
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
917 F. Supp. 925
James A. Cohen, Lincoln Square Legal Services, Inc., New York City, for Plaintiff

Rebecca Ann Durden, Assistant Attorney General, New York State Department of Law, New York City, for State DOCS, Parole and Commission Defendants.

William H. Pauley III, Snitow & Pauley, New York City, for District Attorney Defendants Catterson, Cohen, Jones and Miller.

Garrett W. Swenson, Jr., Assistant County Attorney, Suffolk County Department of Law, Hauppauge, NY, for Former Prosecutor Defendants Byrnes, Keahon and Mazzei.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

SEYBERT, District Judge:

In the instant federal civil-rights action, plaintiff Michael Quartararo, an inmate of the New York State correctional system, brings suit against the defendants alleging that they violated his federal constitutional rights through their conduct in bringing about his removal from a work release program, and in causing his parole applications to be denied. Defendants New York State Division of Parole "Division of Parole", Russi, Horn, Altschuller, Hoy, DeLuca, Callender, Burke, Biddle, Buchanan, Levy, McNiff, Umina, Treen, Tauriello, King, and Rose, all current or former employees of the Division of Parole hereinafter, the "Parole Defendants", New York State Department of Correctional Services "DOCS", New

917 F. Supp. 926
York State Division of Correction "Division of Correction", Coughlin, Recore, Fischer, Esteves, Lester and Jeffrey, all current or former employees of DOCS hereinafter, the "DOCS Defendants", Catterson, Cohen, Miller and Jones, respectively the District Attorney of Suffolk County and assistant district attorneys employed by the Suffolk County District Attorney's Office at the time of the acts alleged in the plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint hereinafter, the "District Attorney Defendants", and Mazzei, Keahon and Byrnes, all former assistant district attorneys who were employed at one time by the Suffolk County District Attorney's Office hereinafter, the "Former Prosecutor Defendants", have moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Parole Defendants, DOCS and the Division of Correction also move to dismiss this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and further move for judgment on the pleadings, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c). In addition, the plaintiff moves pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 15 for leave to file a Third Amended Complaint. For the reasons that follow, the defendants' applications are granted in part and denied in part, and the plaintiff is granted leave to file a Third Amended Complaint consistent with the Court's rulings herein.1

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

A. General Background

On April 20, 1979, John Pius was brutally murdered in Smithtown, New York. John Pius's body was discovered in the woods behind Dogwood Elementary School, partially covered with leaves and with rocks in his mouth and throat. John Pius was thirteen years old at the time of his death.

In December 1979, plaintiff Michael Quartararo, his brother Peter Quartararo, and Robert Brensic were indicted by the Suffolk County Grand Jury for the murder of John Pius. Plaintiff was fourteen years old at the time that he was indicted. Thereafter, in 1981, Thomas Ryan also was indicted for John Pius's murder. In 1981, plaintiff and his brother were tried and convicted and sentenced to prison terms of nine years to life.

Thereafter, plaintiff petitioned the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York for a writ of habeas corpus. By decision dated February 9, 1988, the petition for habeas corpus was granted on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel, and plaintiff was granted a new trial. See Quartararo v. Fogg, 679 F.Supp. 212 (E.D.N.Y.), aff'd, 849 F.2d 1467 (2d Cir.1988). The District Court also ordered plaintiff's release on bail pending trial. See id. Plaintiff remained on bail from February 1988 through February 1990.

In February 1990, plaintiff was retried and reconvicted on the original 1979 indictment, and on May 30, 1990, was sentenced once again to a term of nine years to life. Upon being resentenced, plaintiff was returned to an upstate prison in DOCS custody to serve at a minimum, the remaining two years of his minimum sentence. Plaintiff appealed this reconviction, and his appeal was denied by the Appellate Division on May 31, 1994, see People v. Quartararo, 200 A.D.2d 160, 612 N.Y.S.2d 635 (2d Dep't 1994), and by the New York Court of Appeals on November 1, 1994. See People v. Quartararo, 84 N.Y.2d 939, 621 N.Y.S.2d 536, 645 N.E.2d 1236 (1994).

B. Work Release

After plaintiff's reincarceration, on October 21, 1991, defendants Coughlin and Recore approved plaintiff for the work release program. On January 3, 1992, plaintiff was transferred to the Queensboro Correctional Facility, located in Long Island City, Queens, New York hereinafter, "Queensboro", to participate in the work release program. Thereafter, plaintiff alleges, inter alia, that

917 F. Supp. 927
(a) he was singled out and questioned by defendants DeLuca, Callender and John Doe regarding his role in the Pius murder; (b) unnamed individuals leaked to the press that he was participating in the work release program; (c) the District Attorney Defendants and the Former Prosecutor Defendants engaged in activities to prevent plaintiff's release from prison; and (d) unnamed DOCS Defendants stole and destroyed his work identification cards in an effort to prevent his successful participation in the work release program by causing him to be late for work in the expectation that he would lose his job

Plaintiff continued to participate in DOCS' work release program until January 28, 1992. On or about January 28, 1992, the Parole and DOCS Defendants were notified by defendants Catterson, Cohen, Jones and other unknown District Attorney Defendants that plaintiff allegedly had threatened Barbara Pius, the mother of the slain child. See Pl.'s Second Am.Compl. ? 72. According to plaintiff, this allegation was fabricated for the purpose of preventing his participation in the work release program and to block his release on parole. Upon being notified of this alleged threat, on January 29, 1992, plaintiff was confined to the Special Housing Unit "SHU" at Queensboro where he remained for a period of 14 days, until February 12, 1992. Plaintiff alleges that this confinement was punitive in nature, despite the fact that the Notice of Inmate Segregation that he received termed such confinement as "administrative." See id. ? 73; id. Ex. E (Notice to Inmate of Administrative Segregation). During this 14-day period, plaintiff was confined for 23 hours per day, and was denied hot water, laundry services, personal property, and visitation privileges. Plaintiff also was denied access to a law library, the inmate grievance program, and congregate religious services. See id. ? 73.

On January 30, 1992, and again on February 4, 1992, plaintiff wrote to Superintendent Fischer, seeking an explanation for his confinement to the SHU and requesting his removal from the SHU. See id. Ex. F. Plaintiff alleges that during this same time frame, defendant DeLuca ordered Kay Russell, plaintiff's parole officer, to write a misbehavior report on plaintiff for violating temporary release rules. Russell refused to do so, however, because she had been prohibited from interviewing plaintiff, and prevented from investigating the nature and substance of the alleged threat to Barbara Pius.

Plaintiff alleges that at some point between January 30, 1992 and February 4, 1992, defendants Fischer, Lester, Hoy, DeLuca and others conducted a secret hearing at Queensboro concerning plaintiff's continued participation in work release. Plaintiff was not given notice of this hearing, nor was he provided with an opportunity to appear or to present evidence or witnesses on his behalf. According to plaintiff, his participation in the work release program was summarily revoked after the secret hearing. Plaintiff was not provided with a detailed statement of reasons for his removal from the work release program.

Plaintiff also alleges that the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
34 practice notes
  • Elmasri v. England, No. CV 99-6868.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York)
    • 16 Agosto 2000
    ...re-litigation of claims actually raised in a prior proceeding as well as those that could have been litigated. Quartararo v. Catterson, 917 F.Supp. 919, 944 (E.D.N.Y.1996). Collateral estoppel, also known as issue preclusion, will preclude re-litigation of an issue if the issue sought to be......
  • Wright v. Coughlin, No. 93-CV-601S(F).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court of Western District of New York
    • 17 Diciembre 1998
    ...SHU for 147 days not atypical and significant duration in view of fifteen-years-to-life duration of sentence); Quartararo v. Catterson, 917 F.Supp. 919, 937 (E.D.N.Y.1996) (plaintiff's confinement in SHU for 14 days not atypical and significant in view of plaintiff's sentence of nine years ......
  • Quartararo v. Hanslmaier, No. 94-CV-5564 (JS).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York)
    • 30 Noviembre 1998
    ...had been violated by his removal from a work release program, and by the denial of his parole applications. See Quartararo v. Catterson, 917 F.Supp. 919 (E.D.N.Y. 1996). That case is still pending before this 3. Counsel was appointed for Petitioner on December 15, 1994. This petition was re......
  • Asquith v. Volunteers of America, Civil Action No. 95-300(JEI).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. District of New Jersey
    • 20 Marzo 1998
    ...is disrupted through the revocation of a conditional freedom outside the prison walls." Id. at 375 n. 6. In Quartararo v. Catterson, 917 F.Supp. 919 (E.D.N.Y.1996), the court stated that "the removal of a prisoner from a work release program in which he has been gainfully employed imposes a......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
34 cases
  • Elmasri v. England, No. CV 99-6868.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York)
    • 16 Agosto 2000
    ...re-litigation of claims actually raised in a prior proceeding as well as those that could have been litigated. Quartararo v. Catterson, 917 F.Supp. 919, 944 (E.D.N.Y.1996). Collateral estoppel, also known as issue preclusion, will preclude re-litigation of an issue if the issue sought to be......
  • Wright v. Coughlin, No. 93-CV-601S(F).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court of Western District of New York
    • 17 Diciembre 1998
    ...SHU for 147 days not atypical and significant duration in view of fifteen-years-to-life duration of sentence); Quartararo v. Catterson, 917 F.Supp. 919, 937 (E.D.N.Y.1996) (plaintiff's confinement in SHU for 14 days not atypical and significant in view of plaintiff's sentence of nine years ......
  • Romer v. Morgenthau, No. 99 Civ. 9052(VM).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • 26 Septiembre 2000
    ...and former prosecutors facing individual capacity liability can claim absolute or qualified immunity. See Quartararo v. Catterson, 917 F.Supp. 919, 954 (E.D.N.Y.1996) (extending prosecutorial immunity to former prosecutors for their role in parole process as constituting acts directly relat......
  • Cespedes v. Coughlin, No. 90 Civ. 2667 (DNE).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • 7 Febrero 1997
    ...state regulation or statute that (under Hewitt) would create one." 81 F.3d at 317 (footnote omitted); accord Quartararo v. Catterson, 917 F.Supp. 919, 937 (E.D.N.Y.1996) ("the Sandin Court suggests that considerations of language remain relevant, although not of itself dispositive"). Accord......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT