Samuels v. Fischer
| Decision Date | 01 March 2016 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 13-CV-8287 (KMK) |
| Citation | 168 F.Supp.3d 625 |
| Parties | Kenneth Samuels, Plaintiff, v. Commissioner Brian Fischer, Albert Prack, Superintendent Philip D. Heath, D. Keyser, M. Barnes, C. Gamble, Correction Captain R. Brereton, Correction Sergeant K. White, Correction Officer L. Gould, T. Bellinger, R. Woody, Jr., Correction Officer C. Dowtin, Correctional Officer J. Freeman, Correctional Sgt. Schrader, and Correctional Officer S. Luciano, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Kenneth Samuels, Malone, NY, Pro Se.
Mary Kim, Esq., New York State Office of the Attorney General, New York, NY, Counsel for Defendants.
KENNETH M. KARAS
, District Judge:
Plaintiff Kenneth Samuels (“Plaintiff”) brings this action against defendants Brian Fischer (“Fischer”), Albert Prack (“Prack”), Philip Heath (“Heath”), William Keyser (“Keyser”), Michael Barnes (“Barnes”), Corey Gamble (“Gamble”), Ronald Brereton (“Brereton”), Kenneth White (“White”), Brian Schrader (“Schrader”), LaToya Gould (“Gould”), Timothy Bellinger (“Bellinger”), Ronald Woody (“Woody”), Calvin Dowtin (“Dowtin”), Jonathan Freeman (“Freeman”), and Steven Luciano (“Luciano”) alleging violations of his constitutional and statutory rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
.1 Fischer, Prack, Heath, Keyser, Barnes, Gamble, White, Schrader, Freeman, and Luciano (collectively, “Defendants”) have moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint.2 For the reasons stated herein, the Motion is granted in part, and denied in part.
The following facts are taken from the Amended Complaint and are accepted as true for purposes of this Motion. At the time of the events described herein, Plaintiff was an inmate at Sing Sing Correctional Facility (“Sing Sing”). (Am. Compl. 2 (Dkt. No. 25).)
On November 16, 2010, Plaintiff entered the B-block housing unit, from which he took his shower gear, and went to the Q-Gallery to wait in line for the “bathhouse run.” (Am. Compl. ¶ 15.) By the time that Plaintiff had been waiting in line for at least 20 minutes, he asked Woody what the hold-up was. (Id. ¶ 16.) Woody told him that A-Block was running prisoners to the auditorium for movies. (Id. ) Plaintiff then asked Woody if he could return to his cell, skipping the bathhouse, and go to the yard when the bathhouse returned. (Id. ) Woody said no, telling Plaintiff that because he put down for the bathhouse, he had to go to it. (Id. )
Ten minutes later, an announcement was made instructing all prisoners waiting for the bathhouse run to return all cigarettes to their cells. (See id. ) Plaintiff and several other prisoners went to the back of the Q-Gallery, where Plaintiff showed Bellinger his cigarettes. (Id. ¶ 17.) Bellinger waved Plaintiff and other inmates through. (Id. ) Plaintiff then returned the cigarettes to his cell on W-Gallery. (Id. ) Upon returning, Plaintiff heard Dawtin call down to Bellinger, instructing him to stop the inmate coming off of R-Gallery, apparently in reference to Plaintiff. (See id. ) Bellinger told Dawtin that Plaintiff had just returned cigarettes to his cell on W-Gallery, but Dawtin replied that he did not call W-Gallery, telling Bellinger to send Plaintiff back. (Id. ) Plaintiff attempted to explain to Dawtin that he had been in the Q-Gallery waiting for the bathhouse run prior to the announcement. (Id. ) Dawtin cut Plaintiff off, saying that he did not call W-Gallery, instructing Plaintiff to “take it back and lock it in.” (Id. )3
Plaintiff then proceeded back down the gallery to his cell while speaking to Bellinger, during which time Woody sarcastically told Plaintiff that he should not have put down for the bathhouse anyway. (Id. ¶ 18.) Plaintiff responded, saying, “no one[']s talking to you[;] mind your fucking business.” (Id. ) While Plaintiff was waiting for Gould to open his cell, Plaintiff saw Woody, Dawtin, and Bellinger approaching.
(Id. ¶ 19.) Plaintiff then put his hands on the fenced gate, but Woody said that it was “to [o] late for that” and began pushing Plaintiff back in the direction from which he had come. (Id. ) Gould stood in the middle of the W-Gallery while Plaintiff was being pushed and shoved down the gallery. (Id. ) At that time, Woody, Dawtin, and Bellinger began punching Plaintiff and striking him on the back of the head. (Id. ) Plaintiff turned around and said that all of this was unnecessary. (Id. ) Woody, Dawtin, and Bellinger continued throwing punches, striking Plaintiff around the face. (Id. ) Plaintiff then tried to flee, but Woody grabbed him by the collar of his shirt as Bellinger and Dawtin drew their batons. (See id. ) Plaintiff, fearing for his life, attempted to break Woody's hold on his collar but could not. (Id. ) Plaintiff, fearing further assault, attempted to defend himself successfully blocking with his arm a blow from Bellinger's baton, which Bellinger swung toward Plaintiff's head. (Id. ) Dawtin them rammed his baton into Plaintiff's forehead, causing Plaintiff's head to snap back and Plaintiff's shirt to rip. (See id. ) As Plaintiff stumbled back, Woody struck Plaintiff on the head with his baton, causing Plaintiff to fall to the ground. (Id. ) As Plaintiff tried to get up, he was repeatedly struck on the head and arms. (Id. )
The attack continued until Barnes, who repeatedly ordered Woody, Dawtin, and Bellinger to stop, said, “that's enough; that's enough.” (See id. ¶ 20.) During that time, Gould watched, doing nothing to stop the assault. (Id. ) Plaintiff was then handcuffed, shoved down a flight of stairs, and pushed up against a wall. (Id. ) Gamble shouted, (Id. ) Plaintiff was then made to stand in the back of the shower, bleeding and in agonizing pain for 20 minutes before being taken to medical staff. (Id. )
Plaintiff was then examined by C. Nugent (“Nugent”), a medical staff nurse, who told Plaintiff that he would be taken to an outside hospital. (Id. ¶ 21.) Schrander, Freeman, and Luciano then shackled Plaintiff and placed him in a van, where Plaintiff sat at a Sing Sing check point for several hours, during which time Plaintiff was bleeding and in excruciating pain before being taken to the Mount Vernon Emergency Room. (Id. ) Once there, Plaintiff was treated and received seven sutures to close the wounds
to his head. (Id. ) As a result of the assault, Plaintiff alleges that he suffered contusions as well as bleeding lacerations and abrasions on his head with swelling and abrasions to his arms and neck. (Id. at unnumbered 11.) As a result of the injuries to his head, Plaintiff was still receiving pain medication at the time of the Amended Complaint. (Id. )
On November 17, 2010, in what Plaintiff alleges to have been an “effort to shield the unwarranted, unprovoked assault,” Plaintiff was issued two “Misbehavior Reports” dated November 16, 2010, alleging that he violated various rules of inmate behavior and charging him with two counts of violent conduct (Rule 104.11), two counts of creating a disturbance (Rule 104.13), two counts of assault on staff (Rule 100.11), “[i]nterference with [e]mployee,” two counts of refusing direct orders (Rule 106.10), “[o]ut of [p]lace” (Rule 109.10), and a movement regulation violation (Rule 109.12). (Id. ¶ 22.) Lieutenant Pickens reviewed the misbehavior reports “allegedly written by [D]efendants Woody[ ] [and] Bellinger,” and ordered Plaintiff confined to the special housing unit (“SHU”). (Id. ¶ 23.)
Heath designated Brereton to serve as the hearing officer, (id. ), and, on November 21, 2010, Brereton commenced the “Tier III” hearing, in which Plaintiff entered a plea of not guilty to each of the charges. (Id. ¶ 24.) Plaintiff asked for help obtaining documents and locating and interviewing witnesses; accordingly, Brereton assigned White to assist Plaintiff. (Id. ) On November 23, 2010, Brereton concluded the hearing and found Plaintiff guilty of violent conduct (Rule 104.11), creating a disturbance (Rule 104.13), two counts of assault on staff (Rule 100.11), two counts of refusing a direct order (Rule 106.10), movement regulation (Rule 109.12), and interference with employee (Rule 107.10). (Id. ) Accordingly, Brereton imposed as penalties 30 months' confinement in the SHU, 30 months' loss of packages, commissary, and phones, as well as twelve months' recommended loss of “[g]ood time.” (Id. )
Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff sought discretionary review from Heath. (Id. ¶ 25.) “[S]uch review was passed along and subsequently denied.” (Id. ) On January 20, 2011, Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal, which Fischer designated Prack to review. (Id. ) By notice dated February 14, 2011, Prack, “acting on behalf of Fischer,” notified Plaintiff that the November 23, 2010 superintendent's hearing had been affirmed. (Id. )
On June 9, 2011, Plaintiff commenced an Article 78 proceeding, challenging the denial of his administrative appeal. (Id. ¶ 26.) Later, on November 9, 2011, those proceedings were transferred to the Third Department of the New York Supreme Court's Appellate Division, and Plaintiff filed his brief on January 12, 2012, which raised the same grounds as his Article 78 proceedings. (See id. ¶¶ 26–27.) By the time that the relief that Plaintiff had sought was granted, he had served 22 months of his 30-month penalty, and Plaintiff remained in “segregative confinement” until August 28, 2012. (Id. ¶ 27.)
According to Plaintiff, Brereton and White “deliberately[,] intentionally [,] and knowingly deprived [P]laintiff” of his constitutional due process rights in the context of a disciplinary proceeding by “failing to conduct a fair hearing by a neutral arbitrator,” by “denying Plaintiff the right to call witnesses in support of his defense,” and also by “adequate [sic] assistance [,] as well as [an] erroneously written Misbehavior Report.” (Id. ¶ 28.) Likewise, Plaintiff alleges...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cater v. New York
...1988) (transmitting a complaint to governor's office of administration insufficient basis to impose liability). Samuels v. Fischer, 168 F.Supp.3d 625, 637 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) ("Second Circuit case law makes clear that a plaintiff does not state a claim where he alleges only that a supervisory o......
-
Colon v. Annucci
...two of the personal involvement categories verbatim, is insufficient to plausibly allege personal involvement. See Samuels v. Fischer , 168 F.Supp.3d 625, 636 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) ("Second Circuit law has long taught that, even within the context of the Colon framework, merely reciting the legal......
-
Villafane v. Sposato, CV 16-3674 (JFB) (AKT)
...claims that "the defendant was grossly negligent in supervising subordinates who committed the wrongful acts." Samuels v. Fischer, 168 F. Supp. 3d 625, 638 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) (quoting Colon, 58 F.3d at 873). Courts have held that in order to establish personal involvement in this context, a pl......
-
Heyliger v. Krygier
...absent some factual connection between their failure to train and the harm that eventually befell Plaintiff." Samuels v. Fischer , 168 F.Supp.3d 625, 639 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) ; see also Canales v. Sheahan , No. 12-CV-693(LJV)(HBS), 2017 WL 1164462, at *4 (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 28, 2017) (holding the pla......
-
Part two: case summaries by major topics.
...(Southport Correctional Facility, N.Y.) U.S. District Court PRISONER ON PRISONER ASSAULT FAILURE TO INTERVENE Samuels v. Fischer, 168 F.Supp.3d 625 (S.D.N.Y 2016). A state prisoner brought a [section] 1983 action against prison officials and correctional officers, alleging violation of his ......