Rodriguez v. Monroe

• Decision Date: 02 July 2021
• Docket Number: 9:19-CV-1244 (GTS/CFH)
• Parties: WILLIE RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff, v. MONROE, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York

WILLIE RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff, v. MONROE, et al., Defendants.

No. 9:19-CV-1244 (GTS/CFH)

United States District Court, N.D. New York

July 2, 2021

APPEARANCES:

OF COUNSEL:

Willie Rodriguez

Plaintiff pro se

18-A-4626

Great Meadow Correctional Facility

Maynard, O'Connor, Smith & Catalinotto, LLP

ADAM T. MANDELL, ESQ.

Attorney for Defendants

REPORT-RECOMMENDATION AND ORDER^[1]

CHRISTIAN F. HUMMEL U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff pro se Willie Rodriguez ("Rodriguez" or "Plaintiff"), who was, at all relevant times, confined to Ulster County Jail ("Ulster C.J.") as a convicted and sentenced prisoner, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants Correctional Officers Monroe, Whitaker, Bell, Williams, Sedlak, and McCoy for violations of his constitutional rights under the First and Eighth Amendments. See Dkt. No. 1 ("Compl.").

Presently before the Court is Defendants' motion for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("Fed. R. Civ. P."). See Dkt. No. 26. Rodriguez opposed Defendants' motion (Dkt. Nos. 37 and 39), and Defendants submitted a reply (Dkt. No. 40). For the following reasons, it is recommended that Defendants' motion for summary judgment be granted in part and denied in part.

I. BACKGROUND^[2]A. Facts

The record herein contains few undisputed facts. In support of the motion, Defendants filed a Statement of Material Facts.^[3] Dkt. No. 26-7. Rodriguez responded to the Statement of Material Facts.^[4] Dkt. No. 37 at pp. 1-9; Dkt. No. 39 at pp. 1-10. The facts recited are for the relevant time period as referenced in the Complaint and are related herein in the light most favorable to Rodriguez as the nonmoving party. See subsection II(A) infra.

On or about April 25, 2018, Rodriguez was involved in a physical altercation with Christopher Bell, another inmate confined in Ulster County Jail. Compl. at ¶ 6; see also Rodriguez v. Goins ("Rodriguez I"), No. 18-CV-1380, Dkt. No. 1 (N.D.N.Y. filed Nov. 29, 2018). In November 2018, Rodriguez filed a lawsuit asserting constitutional claims related to the April 2018 incident. See Rodriguez I, Dkt. No. 1. In late November 2018, defendants Correctional Officers Sedlak ("Sedlak") and Whitaker ("Whitaker") moved Rodriguez to the Administrative Segregation Unit in B-Pod.^[5] Compl. at ¶ 17; Dkt. No. 26-4 at 30, 38, 61-62.^[6]Rodriguez was placed under Constant Supervision with a No-Contact Order against Inmate Bell.^[7] Dkt. No. 26-5 at ¶ 6; Dkt. No. 26-6 at ¶ 5; Dkt. No. 37 at 2, ¶ 2. Inmate Bell was also housed in the Administrative Segregation Unit in B-Pod under Constant Supervision with a No-Contact Order against Rodriguez. Dkt. No. 26-5 at ¶ 7; Dkt. No. 26-6 at ¶ 6; Dkt. No. 37 at 2, ¶ 2. Rodriguez and Bell were on Ulster C.J.'s "No-Contact List" as a result of the April 2018 altercation.^[8] Dkt. No. 26-5 at ¶ 9; Dkt. No. 26-6 at ¶ 9; Dkt. No. 37 at 2 ¶ 4. Inmate Bell's cell was located on one side of B-Pod and Rodriguez's cell was located on the opposite side. Dkt. No. 26-5 at ¶ 7; Dkt. No. 26-6 at ¶ 6; Dkt. No. 37 at 2 ¶ 2.

On December 4, 2018, defendant Correctional Officer Monroe ("Monroe") was working as the Housing Unit Officer in B-Pod. Dkt. No. 26-5 at ¶ 3. Defendants Correctional Officers Bell ("C.O. Bell") and Williams ("Williams") were also working in B-Pod. Dkt. No. 26-4 at 44; Dkt. No. 26-6 at ¶¶ 3, 8. C.O. Bell was assigned to Rodriguez's cell and Williams was assigned to Inmate Bell's cell. Id.

On December 4, 2018, Monroe opened Rodriguez's cell door, releasing him from his cell to use the shower and telephone. Dkt. No. 26-5 at ¶ 14; Dkt. No. 26-6 at ¶ 15; Dkt. No. 37 at 5 ¶ 13. C.O. Bell remained at his post, but was able to see Rodriguez. Dkt. No. 26-6 at ¶ 15. At approximately 12:30 P.M., Monroe opened Inmate Bell's cell doors releasing him from his cell. Dkt. No. 26-6 at ¶ 14; Dkt. No. 37 at p. 18. At approximately 1:00 P.M., Rodriguez and Inmate Bell were involved in a physical altercation. Dkt. No. 26-4 at 45; Dkt. No. 26-5 at ¶ 13; Dkt. No. 26-6 at ¶ 15; Dkt. No. 37 at 16-18.

Rodriguez testified that Inmate Bell "attacked" him and struck him in the ear, face, head, and back of his neck. Dkt. No. 26-4 at 47. Rodriguez was seated at the time and "did not fight back." Id. at 53. Rodriguez testified that the assault continued for "less than five minutes" and he does not recall if the officers intervened. Id. at 54. Rodriguez was escorted to the medical unit. Id. Rodriguez spoke with defendant Correctional Officer Tracy McCoy ("McCoy") and expressed his intent to file a grievance. Dkt. No. 26-4 at 56. McCoy advised Rodriguez that the issues were "non-grievable." Id.

In an Incident Report, C.O. Bell reported that Inmate Bell approached Rodriguez while he was talking on the telephone and started punching Rodriguez in the face.^[9] Dkt. No. 37 at 16. Rodriguez tried to "get[ ] away" but "fell to the ground" and Inmate Bell "continued punching Rodriguez in the back of his head." Id.

B. Procedural History

In October 2019, Rodriguez commenced this action. See Compl. Upon review of the Complaint, the Court found that the following claims survived and required a response: (1) Eighth Amendment failure to protect claims against Monroe, C.O. Bell, Williams, Sedlak, and Whitaker; and (2) First Amendment retaliation claims against Bell, Sedlak, and McCoy. See Dkt. No. 4 (the "November Order"). Defendants filed an Answer to the Complaint. Dkt. No. 14.^[10] On January 8, 2020, a Mandatory Pretrial Discovery and Scheduling Order was issued directing the parties to complete discovery on or before July 8, 2020, and file dispositive motions on or before September 8, 2020. Dkt. No. 16. On September 18, 2020, Defendants moved for an extension of time to conduct Plaintiff's deposition and an extension of the discovery and dispositive deadlines. Dkt. No. 22. Rodriguez opposed the request for an extension of time. Dkt. No. 25. On September 21, 2020, the Court issued an Order extending the deadline for conducting plaintiff's deposition until October 5, 2020, and the deadline for dispositive motions to December 7, 2020. Dkt. No. 24. On October 22, 2020, Plaintiff underwent his deposition. Dkt. No. 26-4. On December 7, 2020, Defendants filed the within motion pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 seeking summary judgment and dismissal of all claims. See generally Dkt. No. 26.

II. DISCUSSION

Rodriguez contends that Defendants (1) were deliberately indifferent to his health and safety, and (2) retaliated against him in violation of his constitutional rights. See generally Compl. Defendants argue they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Rodriguez's Eighth Amendment and First Amendment retaliation claims. Defendants also claim that Rodriguez failed to establish that Whitaker, Williams, Sedlak, and McCoy were personally involved in the alleged constitutional violations. In the alternative, Defendants argue they are entitled to qualified immunity. See generally Dkt. No. 26-8.

A. Legal Standards 1. Motion for Summary Judgment

A motion for summary judgment may be granted if there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, it was supported by affidavits or other suitable evidence, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The moving party bears the burden of demonstrating the absence of disputed material facts by providing the court with portions of pleadings, depositions, and affidavits which support the motion. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 (c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). Facts are material if they may affect the outcome of the case as determined by substantive law. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 317, 248 (1986). All ambiguities are resolved and all reasonable inferences are drawn in favor of the non-moving party. See Skubel v. Fuoroli, 113 F.3d 330, 334 (2d Cir. 1997).

The party opposing the motion must set forth facts showing a genuine issue for trial. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). For a court to grant a motion for summary judgment, it must be apparent that no rational finder of fact could find in favor of the non-moving party. See Gallo v. Prudential Residential Servs., Ltd. Partnership, 22 F.3d 1219, 1223-24 (2d Cir. 1994); Graham v. Lewinski, 848 F.2d 342, 344 (2d Cir. 1988).

Where, as here, a party seeks judgment against a pro se litigant, a court must afford the non-movant special solicitude. See Triestman v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 477 (2d Cir. 2006). As the Second Circuit has stated,

[t]here are many cases in which we have said that a pro se litigant is entitled to "special solicitude," . . . that a pro se litigant's submissions must be construed "liberally, ". . . and that such submissions must be read to raise the strongest arguments that they "suggest," . . . . At the same time, our cases have also indicated that we cannot read into pro se submissions claims that are not "consistent" with the pro se litigant's allegations, . . . or arguments that the submissions themselves do not "suggest," . . . that we should not "excuse frivolous or vexatious filings by pro se litigants," . . . and that pro se status "does not exempt a party from compliance with relevant rules of procedural and substantive law.

Id. (citations and footnote omitted); see also Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant, 537 F.3d 185, 191-92 (2d Cir. 2008).

2. N.D.N.Y. Local Rule 56.1

As discussed supra, Defendants filed a Statement of Material Facts, and Rodriguez responded to the Statement of Facts denying certain statements. Defendants argue that because Plaintiff failed to include citations to the record or other evidence to substantiate his denials, the facts set forth in their Statement of Material...