Reed v. Doe
| Decision Date | 26 July 2012 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 9:11-CV-0250 (TJM/DEP) |
| Parties | BENJI D. REED, Plaintiff, v. JOHN DOE No. 1; JOHN DOE No 2; and M. SOTO, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York |
APPEARANCES:
FOR PLAINTIFF:
BENJI D. REED, Pro Se1
HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN
Attorney General of the State
JAMES SEAMAN, ESQ.
Assistant Attorney General
DAVID E. PEEBLES
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Benji D. Reed, a New York State prison inmate who is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has commenced this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against various prison officials, alleging deprivation of his civil rights. While the scope of his complaint has been winnowed, and it now raises only claims of cruel and unusual punishment and unlawful retaliation against one named and two unidentified "Doe" defendants, as originally filed that pleading asserted an array of claims stemming from incidents occurring at two separate correctional facilities.
In response to plaintiff's complaint the sole remaining named defendant has moved for dismissal of all claims against him for failure to state a plausible cause of action upon which relief may be granted. The plaintiff, in turn, has applied for leave to amend his complaint, and for appointment of counsel to represent him pro bono. For the reasons setforth below, I recommend that defendant's motion to dismiss be granted, and will deny plaintiff's application for leave to amend, on the basis of futility in light of my recommendation regarding the legal sufficiency of his existing claims, as well as his request for assignment of counsel.
Plaintiff is a prison inmate entrusted to the custody of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision ("DOCCS"). See generally Complaint (Dkt. No. 1). At the times relevant to the claims remaining in the action, he was designated to Eastern, located in Napanoch, New York. Id. at 3.
The events giving rise to plaintiff's claims were set in motion on September 14, 2010, when Reed developed an illness he attributed to food consumed in the mess hall at Eastern. Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) ¶¶ 32-37. Plaintiff maintains that the food causing his intestinal issues wasknown by defendant John Doe No. 1 to have been contaminated, and should have been inspected by defendant John Doe No. 2 prior to being served to the inmates. Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) ¶¶ 41-42.
Plaintiff was initially treated on the following day at the facility's medical clinic, along with several other affected inmates, and given "dymotabs" to address the condition. Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) ¶ 38. The medication was subsequently discontinued on that same day, however, and plaintiff was confined to his cell and placed on a water diet for one day. Id. at ¶¶ 39-40.
While at Eastern, plaintiff was designated to undergo alcohol and substance abuse treatment in a program ("ASAT") overseen by defendant M. Soto, a counselor at the facility. See Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) ¶¶ 6, 31. Based apparently upon his absence from ASAT treatment while confined to his cell due to illness, plaintiff received a misbehavior report authored by defendant M. Soto accusing him of lying regarding his location on September 15, 2010, after being asked why he did not appear for ASAT treatment, and for failing to follow facility rules regarding attendance in the program. Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) ¶¶ 46-47. At a subsequent disciplinary hearing conducted to address the accusations set forth in the misbehaviorreport, however, the charges were dismissed. Id. at ¶ 49.
Following plaintiff's return to the ASAT program he was called into defendant Soto's office and, after a conversation during which Reed refused to discuss the conviction that led to his incarceration, he was forced by Soto to sign a refusal to participate in ASAT training. Id. at ¶¶ 50-56. Plaintiff was then removed from the ASAT program and escorted to his cell, where he remained in keeplock pending a hearing stemming from the issuance of a new misbehavior report alleging his refusal to participate in the ASAT program.3 Id. at ¶ 57-61. At a subsequent hearing, conducted on October 12, 2010, Reed was exonerated of all charges and was permitted to return to the ASAT program. Id. at ¶¶ 64-65. As a result of issuance of the two misbehavior reports, while atEastern plaintiff was keeplock-confined for a total of fourteen days.4 See Plaintiff's Memorandum (Dkt. No. 18) p. 6 of 18.
Plaintiff was subsequently transferred out of Eastern and into the Southport Correctional Facility, located in Pine City, New York, in December 2010. Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) ¶ 71.
Plaintiff commenced this action on March 8, 2011. Complaint (Dkt. No. 1). Plaintiff's complaint named the two Doe defendants, M. Soto, and seven corrections employees assigned to Southport as defendants, and asserted claims under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the Americans With Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12,101 et seq., and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794, additionally setting forth a pendent claim of negligence. By order issued on August 2, 2011, based upon an initial review of plaintiff's complaint and accompanying in forma pauperis application, Senior District Judge McAvoy ordered all claims arising from events occurring at Southport severed, and directed that those claims be transferred to the WesternDistrict of New York. Dkt. No. 4.
In lieu of answering plaintiff's complaint defendant Soto, the sole remaining named defendant in this action, moved on October 17, 2011 for dismissal of plaintiff's claims, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Dkt. No. 11. In his motion defendant argues that plaintiff's complaint fails to allege a plausible claim upon which relief may be granted, and that in any event he is entitled to qualified immunity from suit. Id. Plaintiff has since submitted a response in opposition to defendant's motion. Dkt. No. 18.
Following the filing of defendant's dismissal motion, plaintiff moved on December 7, 2011 for leave to file an amended complaint, pursuant to Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Dkt. No. 14. In his motion Reed asserts that amendment is sought to permit elimination of the claims and references to the defendants affected by the transfer to the Western District of New York, and to clarify and expand upon facts set forth in his original complaint relating to events at Eastern. See Motion for Leave to Amend (Dkt. No. 14) ¶¶ 1-2. Plaintiff has also requested appointment of counsel to represent him in the action, pro bono. Dkt. No. 15. Defendant Soto has since responded in opposition to those motions,by letter dated January 6, 2011 from his counsel, Megan A. Brown, Esq., arguing that the motion for leave to amend should be denied as futile for the same reasons as set forth in his dismissal motion, and taking no position with regard to plaintiff's request for appointment of counsel. Dkt. No. 17.
Defendant's dismissal motion, which is now ripe for determination, has been referred to me for the issuance of a report and recommendation, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Northern District of New York Rule 72.3(c). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). The remaining two motions brought by the plaintiff fall within my non-consensual jurisdiction, and therefore will be addressed in the form of an order from this court.
Defendant's motion to dismiss a complaint, brought pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, calls upon a court to gauge the facial sufficiency of that pleading, utilizing as a backdrop a pleading standard which, though unexacting in its requirements, "demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed me accusation" in order to withstand scrutiny. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 554, 555, 127 S. Ct. 1955, (2007)). Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that a complaint contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). While modest in its requirement, that rule commands that a complaint contain more than mere legal conclusions; "[w]hile legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations." Ashcroft, 129 S. Ct. at 1950.
To withstand a motion to dismiss, a complaint must plead sufficient facts which, when accepted as true, state a claim that is plausible on its face. Ruotolo v. City of New York, 514 F.3d 184, 188 (2d Cir. 2008) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570, 127 S. Ct. at 1974). As the Second Circuit has observed, "[w]hile Twombly does not require heightened fact pleading of specifics, it does require enough facts to 'nudge [plaintiff's] claims across the line from conceivable to plausible.'" In re Elevator Antitrust Litig., 502 F.3d 47, 50 (2d Cir. 2007) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570, 127 S. Ct. at 1974).
In deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal motion, the court must accept the material facts alleged in the complaint as true and draw all inferencesin favor of the non-moving party. Cooper v. Pate, 378 U.S. 546, 546, 84 S. Ct. 1723, 1734 (1964); Miller v. Wolpoff & Abramson, LLP, 321 F.3d 292, 300 (2d Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 823, 124 S. Ct. 153 (2003); Burke v. Gregory, 356 F. Supp. 2d 179, 182 (N.D.N.Y. 2005) (Kahn, J.). The burden undertaken by a party requesting dismissal of a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) is substantial; the question presented by such a motion is not whether the plaintiff is likely ultimately to prevail, "'but whether the claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support the claims.'" Log On America, Inc. v. Promethean Asset Mgmt. L.L.C., 223 F. Supp.2d 435, 441 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (quoting Gant v. Wallingford Bd. of Educ., 69...
To continue reading
Request your trial