Sitts v. Simonds
| Decision Date | 11 May 2022 |
| Docket Number | 9:20-CV-1475 (TJM/ML) |
| Parties | JAMES C. SITTS, Plaintiff, v. SIMONDS; CORY BENE, Officer of Corrections; BIGGAR, Sergeant; and GOFF, Corporal, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York |
JAMES C. SITTS Pro Se Plaintiff
OFFICE OF FRANK W. MILLER FRANK W. MILLER, ESQ.THOMAS MURPHY, ESQ Counsel for Defendants
ORDER AND REPORT-RECOMMENDATION
Currently before the Court, in this civil rights action filed by James C. Sitts (“Plaintiff”) against Simonds,[1] Cory Bene, Biggar, and Goff (collectively “Defendants”), is Defendants' motion for summary judgement pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. (Dkt. No. 43.) For the reasons set forth below, I recommend that Defendants' motion for summary judgement be granted in part and denied in part.
Generally, liberally construed, Plaintiff's Complaint asserts the following three claims: (1) a claim that Defendants Simonds and Bene used excessive force and failed to intervene pursuant to the Eighth or Fourteenth Amendments[2] and 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (2) a claim that Defendant Simonds was deliberately indifferent to his medical needs pursuant to Eighth or Fourteenth Amendments[3] and 42 U.S.C. § 1983; and (3) a claim that Defendants Biggar and Goff retaliated against him in violation of the First Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Dkt. Nos. 1, 8.) The Court's Decision and Order dated January 13, 2021, thoroughly outlines the factual allegations and causes of action alleged in Plaintiff's Complaint.[4] (Dkt. No. 8 at 4-6.)
On December 2, 2020, Plaintiff commenced this civil rights action by the filing of a Complaint. (Dkt. No. 1.) On January 13, 2021, Senior United States District Judge Thomas J. McAvoy issued an order that granted Plaintiff's IFP application, and-after reviewing the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A-permitted the action to go forward with respect to certain of Plaintiff's claims as set forth above in Part I.A. of this Order and Report-Recommendation. (Dkt. No. 8.)
On October 12, 2021, Defendants filed the pending motion for summary judgment. (Dkt. No. 43.) The deadline for Plaintiff to respond to Defendants' motion was November 2, 2021. (Dkt. No. 45.) Plaintiff did not file a response by that deadline. (See generally docket sheet.) As a result, on November 10, 2021, the Court sua sponte extended the deadline for Plaintiff to respond to Defendants' motion until December 10, 2021. (Dkt. No. 47.) On December 8, 2021, Plaintiff filed a response in opposition. (Dkt. No. 48.)
Unless otherwise noted, the following facts were asserted and supported by Defendants in their Statement of Material Facts and not denied by Plaintiff in his response.
1. On April 17, 2020, at the Delaware County Correctional Facility (“Delaware”) in Delhi, New York, at approximately 7:30 a.m., Officer Amanda Reichert was doing a monthly blanket exchange. Plaintiff told her that he did not need to exchange his blankets. Officer Reichert called Defendant Simonds and told him that Plaintiff refused to exchange his blankets. After approximately twenty minutes, Plaintiff's pod was locked down.[5] 2. Defendant Simonds and other corrections officers entered Plaintiff's cell while Plaintiff was lying on his bed. Defendant Simonds told Plaintiff to give Defendant Simonds his blankets, Plaintiff refused. Defendant Simonds then ordered Plaintiff to give Defendant Simonds his blankets.[6]
3. Plaintiff then got up and threw his blankets on the floor. Plaintiff laid back down on his bed, face up. Plaintiff was ordered to get up and hand the blankets to Defendant Simonds. Plaintiff refused and used profanity.[7]
4. Defendant Simonds then ordered Plaintiff to lay on the ground and place his hands behind his back. Plaintiff refused to comply. Defendant Simonds attempted to administer a burst of OC spray at the facial area of Plaintiff but missed Plaintiff's face and instead hit his arm and the wall beside his head. Defendant Bene was present and followed up with a burst of OC spray in Plaintiff's facial area.
5. Plaintiff was brought to the ground with the assistance of another officer who handcuffed Plaintiff behind his back. Plaintiff was then stood up facing the wall. A restraint chair was brought to the unit and Plaintiff was escorted downstairs and placed in the restraint chair.
6. Plaintiff was evaluated by Nurse Balcom. Once Plaintiff was cleared by the nurse, he was escorted to the shower area and decontaminated.
7. After decontamination, Plaintiff was taken back to holding cell B-104 until his cell was cleaned, then he was returned to his cell.
8. Plaintiff filed a grievance regarding the incident. Plaintiff “signed off” on his grievance. However, Plaintiff alleges that he signed off because Defendants Biggar and Goff told him that his chances of getting transferred to Otsego County Jail were increased if he signed off.
9. Defendants Biggar and Goff refute that they made any statement to Plaintiff about a transfer to Otsego County Jail in relation to signing off on his grievance.[8]
Generally, in support of their motion for summary judgment, Defendants assert the following five arguments: (1) Plaintiff's excessive force claim must fail as a matter of law because the force used was reasonable; (2) Plaintiff's deliberate medical indifference claim must fail as legally insufficient; (3) Plaintiff's retaliation claim against Defendants Biggar and Goff should be dismissed as legally deficient; (4) in the alternative, Plaintiff's claims are barred by the doctrine of qualified immunity; and (5) Plaintiff's claims fail as a matter of law because Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies.
First, Defendants argue that Plaintiff cannot show that Defendants Simonds and Bene's use of OC spray was excessive where Plaintiff disobeyed lawful commands to turn over his blankets and to get on the ground. (Id. at 5-7.) Moreover, Defendants argue that the force used was reasonable because it was in the context of a good faith effort to restore control and discipline to the facility. (Id.)
Second, Defendants argue that Plaintiff cannot establish the subjective element of his medical indifference claim because there were only approximately fifteen to twenty minutes between the time that the OC spray was administered and when Plaintiff was decontaminated. (Id. at 7-8.) Defendants argue that when Plaintiff's decontamination began, Defendant Simonds's “obligation to the Plaintiff” ended. (Id.)
Third, Defendants argue that Defendants Biggar and Goff did not present Plaintiff with the requirement that he sign off on his grievance or forgo a transfer to Otsego County Correctional Facility. (Id. at 8-10.) Defendants argue that Plaintiff's retaliation claim is based on conclusory statements without independent proof, and thus, should fail. (Id.) In addition, Defendants argue that there is no evidence that Defendants Biggar and Goff's alleged adverse action deterred Plaintiff from continuing to file grievances and lawsuits. (Id.)
Fourth, Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. (Id. at 10-12.) More specifically, Defendants argue that their action-administering OC spray-was objectively reasonable and Defendants Simonds and Bene did not violate a clearly established constitutional right where they warned Plaintiff before application of the OC spray and he refused to obey Defendants' commands. (Id.) In addition, Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiff's other causes of action because there is no showing of violation of Plaintiff's rights and Plaintiff's right to be free from retaliation “was never clearly established.” (Id.)
Fifth, Defendants argue that they are entitled to summary judgment because Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. (Id. at 12-13.) Defendants argue that Plaintiff's administrative remedies included submission to the Citizen's Policy and Complaint Review Council, but that Plaintiff failed to do so. (Id.)
Generally, in opposition to Defendants' motion, Plaintiff argues that he was a pre-trial detainee in Delaware Correctional Facility at the time of the incident and had not been “a problem” in any other institutions. (Dkt. No. 48.) Plaintiff argues that he was ordered to exchange his blanket and that in response he explained to the corrections officer that he had just exchanged his blanket, but he was not violent or threatening. (Id.) Plaintiff acknowledged that he refused an order but argues that disobeying an order is “not a good reason to spray an inmate directly in the eyes and left for an hour before decontamination.” (Id.)
A. Standard Governing
Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56, summary judgment is warranted if “the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). A dispute of fact is “genuine” if “the [record] evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the [non-movant].” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).[9] As for the materiality requirement, a dispute of fact is “material” if it Anderson, 477...
To continue reading
Request your trial