Randle v. Alexander

Decision Date16 March 2016
Docket Number10-CV-9235 (JPO)
Citation170 F.Supp.3d 580
Parties El'Reko D'Wayne Randle, Plaintiff, v. Sergeant Tracy Alexander et al., Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

Konrad Lee Cailteux, Amy Lynn Melville Suehnholz, Damien Robert Kieran, David Paul Byeff, Jane Lee, Jonathan Edgar Algor, IV, Marjan Hajibandeh, Nadya Lauren Salcedo, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, New York, NY, for Plaintiff.

James Brennan Cooney, Michael Francis Albanese, Yan Fu, New York State Attorney General, New York, NY, Ryan T. Donovan, Lauren K. Deluca, Harris, Conway & Donovan, PLLC, Albany, NY, for Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER

J. PAUL OETKEN

, District Judge

Plaintiff El'Reko D'Wayne Randle filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

. Randle alleges that prison officials violated the Eighth Amendment by forcing him to fight and ultimately kill another prisoner while they watched. He also alleges Eighth Amendment violations related to a two-year period of solitary confinement. In three separate motions, Defendants move for summary judgment. (Dkt. Nos. 239–41.) For the reasons that follow, the motions are denied.

I. Factual Background

There are a number of Defendants in this action. Dennis Benitez, William Monzon, Harold Hanaman, and Kyle Nelson (collectively, the “Guard Defendants) were correctional officers (“C.O.s”) at Green Haven Correctional Facility (“Green Haven”) in January 2009. Tracy Alexander was a sergeant at Green Haven at that time. John Marinelli is a psychologist who treated Randle at Upstate Correctional Facility (“Upstate”).

Steven Kafka and Sean Duncan are investigators in the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (“DOCCS”) Inspector General's Office (the “IG's Office”).1 During relevant periods, Donald Selsky and Kenneth Decker worked for the DOCCS Assistant Commissioner, and Ryan McNulty, Melissa Collins, Mitchel Lake, and Charles Gordon worked for the DOCCS Bureau of Mental Health Services. The parties refer to Defendants named in this paragraph as the “Mental Health Defendants.” (Dkt. No. 60 ¶ 28; Dkt. No. 99 at 2; Dkt. No. 241 (“Def.'s Mot.”) at 1 n.3.)

Randle is currently incarcerated at Sullivan Correctional Facility.2 This case arises out of events that occurred when he was imprisoned at Green Haven, Upstate, and Clinton Correctional Facility (“Clinton”) between 2009 and 2011.

A. The Green Haven Fights

This dispute centers on two fights at Green Haven between Randle and a prisoner named Melvin Johnson (the “Green Haven Fights”). (Dkt. No. 293 ¶ 1.) According to Randle, in early January 2009, C.O. Benitez approached him, told him he had the “option” to fight Johnson, and said he would “cover-up the fact that the officers forced the[ ] [prisoners] to fight.” (Id. ¶ 30.) Several days later, C.O. Benitez instigated a fight by telling Randle that Johnson had accused him of violating prison rules. (Id. at ¶¶ 3, 30.) Defendants dispute both that C.O. Benitez threatened Randle and that he instigated the fight, but agree that the prisoners began fighting on January 9, 2009, after correctional officers released Randle from his cell. (Id. ¶ 5.)

The first fight took place in Johnson's cell. Defendants allege that Randle hit Johnson approximately twenty times, aiming for his head. (Def.'s Mot. at 6.) Randle does not recall how many times he struck Johnson, but “doubt[s] it was more than five times.” (Dkt. No. 293 ¶ 5.) The parties agree that C.O. Monzon stopped the fight “with verbal commands” and then escorted Randle to the “mantrap,” a room with locked doors on two sides. (Id. ¶ 6; Def.'s Mot. at 7.)

The parties offer conflicting descriptions of events inside the mantrap. Randle avers that he and Johnson were taken to the mantrap together, where C.O. Benitez told them to “finish what y'all started.” (Dkt. No. 293 ¶ 7, 32.) He states that C.O.s Hanaman and Nelson were in a room adjacent to the mantrap called the “Bubble” when he entered, and that shortly thereafter, C.O. Nelson left “without taking any action to ensure the inmates had been secured.” (Dkt. No. 276 ¶ 8; Dkt. No. 293 ¶ 6, 38.) The prisoners then began to fight for a second time. (Dkt. No. 293 ¶40.) Randle avers that “multiple voices cheered from inside the Bubble after he struck Johnson,” and that “none of the officers attempted to stop the fight.” (Id. ¶ 8.) At some point, Johnson fell to the ground and did not get up. Sergeant Alexander then arrived at the scene and, according to Randle's sworn testimony, said “why is this piece of shit laying here on my floor?” (Id. ¶ 42.) Johnson later died of his injuries.

Defendants state that C.O. Hanaman was the only officer in the Bubble when C.O. Monzon brought Randle into the mantrap. (Id. ¶ 6.) They aver that C.O. Nelson was “securing the A-4 Gallery” during the second fight and did not arrive at the mantrap until after the fight concluded. (Id. ¶ 8; Def.'s Mot. at 8.) Their account of the facts does not include cheering by officers during the fight, nor does it contain Sergeant Alexander's statement about Johnson. Defendants assert that the second fight lasted “about fifteen seconds.” (Dkt. No. 293 ¶ 8.)

Sergeant Alexander and the Guard Defendants each wrote incident reports after the fight. According to Randle, the Guard Defendants conversed while writing their “one-to-two page reports” over the course of five hours, and Sergeant Alexander “referred to the[ ] [Guard Defendants'] reports when he wrote his own.” (Id. ¶¶ 44-46.)

After the fight, Randle was sentenced to ten years in the Special Housing Unit (“SHU”), a form of solitary confinement. (Id. ¶ 54; Def.'s Mot. at 8; Dkt. No. 278–3 at 160 (“Benitez Dep.”) (describing SHU custody as equivalent to solitary confinement).) He was transferred to the SHU at Upstate on February 12, 2009. (Def.'s Mot. at 8.)

B. SHU Confinement

Randle was held in the SHU at Upstate from “approximately February 12, 2009 to April 16, 2009.” (Dkt No. 293 ¶ 10.) During that period, he received mental health treatment from Defendant Marinelli. (Dkt. No. 293 ¶ 10.) The parties dispute how many times Randle met with Marinelli, how thoroughly Marinelli reviewed Randle's records, and what Randle's “OMH Mental Health Level” was during his confinement at Upstate. Randle asserts that he met with Marinelli three times; Defendants state that Marinelli met with Randle “at least seven times.” (Id. ¶ 12, 18.) Randle asserts that Marinelli knew that he had attempted suicide multiple times, but “brushed [him] off” when he said he didn't feel safe being in the cell by himself.” (Id. ¶12.) Defendants state that Randle “denied suicidal thinking” and was “consistently assessed as a low suicide risk” by Marinelli and other prison staff. (Id. ¶¶ 12, 17.)

On April 16, 2009, Randle “cut himself seriously enough that he required sutures at an outside hospital.” (Id. ¶ 21.) After being released from the hospital, he was transferred to a “mental health crisis unit” at Clinton. (Id. ) Shortly thereafter, Randle was sent to Clinton's “Group Therapy Program” (“GTP”), a “SHU-based intervention” in which “seriously mentally ill inmates are housed in SHU blocks.” (Id. ¶¶ 21, 92.) Randle stayed in the Clinton SHU until August 2010, when he was sent to the GTP at Elmira Correctional Facility (“Elmira”). (Id. ¶135.) He was transferred to a hospital on October 19, 2010 after a suicide attempt, and returned to Elmira thereafter. (Id. ¶ 137.) Randle was then sent to the GTP at Wende Correctional Facility. (Id. ¶ 140.) He was released from the Wende GTP, and thus SHU custody, on June 20, 2011, when he was sent to Five Points Correctional Facility. (Id. )

Randle alleges that the Mental Health Defendants denied multiple requests to transfer him to a less restrictive mental health program during his two year period of confinement in the GTP. (Id. ¶ 22.) The parties agree that the Mental Health Defendants reviewed and denied Randle's transfer requests (Id. ¶ 24), but dispute whether the denials were warranted. Randle asserts that the GTP is intended to be “a time-limited intervention with a goal of stabilizing inmates.” (Id. ¶ 25.) He avers that employees in the Office of Mental Health, including members of his “treatment team,” recommended him for transfer from the GTP multiple times, but that each time DOCCS employees denied, canceled, or failed to implement the recommendations “to punish [him] for the outcome of the [Green Haven Fights].” (Id. ¶¶ 103, 106, 109, 112, 114, 116, 123; see also Dkt. No. 291 (“Pl.'s Opp.”) at 41.) The Mental Health Defendants assert that the GTP was appropriate for Randle and that employees in the various programs provided Randle with adequate care. (Id. ¶ 24.)

C. Grievances

On February 2, 2009, Randle filed a grievance alleging that C.O.s Benitez and Monzon had encouraged the Green Haven Fights and fabricated a misbehavior report about their role in the incident. (Id. ¶ 54; Def.'s Mem. at 19; Dkt. No. 272–2; Dkt. No. 292–21.) Green Haven's Superintendent decided to refer the grievance to the IG's Office. (Dkt. No. 293 ¶ 55.) Randle appealed that decision to the Central Office Review Committee (“CORC”), which upheld the Superintendent's decision. (Dkt. No. 292–22; Dkt. No. 293 ¶ 55.) After an investigation, the IG's Office determined that the allegation that C.O. Benitez “failed to follow safety protocols” was “substantiated.” (Dkt. No. 292–23 at 3-4.)

On August 4, 2009, during his incarceration at the Clinton GTP, Randle wrote a letter to Diane Van Buren, Assistant Commissioner in DOCCS Central Office. (Dkt. No. 292–29; Dkt. No. 293 ¶ 65.) The letter requested that Van Buren “please help me get to a program where the CO's don't harass and the workers are really sincere with helping guys like me.” (Dkt. No. 292–29.) Van Buren forwarded the letter to the Superintendent at Clinton and asked him to investigate Randle's concerns. (Dkt. No. 292–31.)

On May 11, 2010, Randle filed a formal grievance from the Clinton GTP. (Dkt. No. 292–27.) The grievance challenged Randle's ongoing...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • Moroughan v. Cnty. of Suffolk
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • 20 Enero 2021
    ...defendants positively or tacitly came to a mutual understanding to try to accomplish a common and unlawful plan." Randle v. Alexander , 170 F. Supp. 3d 580, 591 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) (brackets omitted) (quoting Stein v. Janos , 269 F. Supp. 2d 256, 261-62 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) ).2. Analysisa. The DFRT ......
  • Elaine v. Anderson
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • 25 Agosto 2017
    ...free from deliberate indifference to [their] serious medical needs has been clearly established for decades." Cf. Randle v. Alexander, 170 F. Supp. 3d 580, 596 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) (considering and rejecting qualified immunity in the Eighth Amendment context where officials ignored a prisoner's ......
  • Casiano v. Cnty. of Nassau
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • 7 Enero 2019
    ...to state sufficient facts to establish that the decedent's rights secured by the Eighth Amendment were violated. Randle v. Alexander, 170 F. Supp. 3d 580, 596 (S.D.N.Y. 2016)("a prisoner's right to be free from deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs has been clearly establishe......
  • Bigsby v. Barclays Capital Real Estate, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • 16 Marzo 2016
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Part two: case summaries by major topics.
    • United States
    • Detention and Corrections Caselaw Quarterly No. 69, June 2017
    • 1 Junio 2017
    ...by due process. (Southport Correctional Facility, New York) U.S. District Court SEGREGATION SOLITARY CONFINEMENT Randle v. Alexander, 170 F.Supp.3d 580 (S.D.N.Y. 2016). A state prisoner brought a [section] 1983 action against corrections officers and corrections officials, alleging they vio......

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