Tashbook v. Petrucci
| Decision Date | 25 March 2022 |
| Docket Number | 20-CV-5318 (KMK) (PED) |
| Parties | ROBERT TASHBOOK, Petitioner, v. WARDEN JAMES PETRUCCI, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
ROBERT TASHBOOK, Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN JAMES PETRUCCI, Respondent.
No. 20-CV-5318 (KMK) (PED)
United States District Court, S.D. New York
March 25, 2022
Appearances:
Robert Tashbook Otisville, NY Pro Se Petitioner
Audrey Strauss, Esq. Danielle J. Levine, Esq. U.S. Attorney's Office New York, NY Counsel for Respondent
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT & RECOMMENDATION
KENNETH M. KARAS, DISTRICT JUDGE
Robert Tashbook (“Petitioner”), proceeding pro se, has filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (the “Petition”)-ostensibly pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254-alleging that he is currently being housed in unconstitutional conditions of confinement at FCI Otisville (“Otisville”) and is seeking to be released “either from prison or from the restrictive conditions [he is] being housed under.” (See Pet. for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Pet.”) (Dkt. No. 1).)
In a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) dated April 22, 2021, Magistrate Judge Paul E. Davison (“Judge Davison”) recommended that the Petition be denied in its entirety. (See Report & Recommendation (“R&R”) (Dkt. No. 38).) Petitioner filed Objections to the R&R on May 23, 2021, (see Pet'r's Obj's to R&R (“Obj's”) (Dkt. No. 41)), to which Respondent
responded on June 16, 2021, (see Resp't's Resp. to Pet'r's Obj's to R&R (“Resp. to Obj's”) (Dkt. No. 42)). After a review of the R&R, Petitioner's Objections, and Respondent's Response to the Objections, the Court adopts the result recommended in the R&R and denies the Petition.
I. Background
A. Factual Background
Petitioner has been incarcerated at Otisville since his 2002 conviction in the Northern District of California for various counts of attempted and actual unlawful sexual conduct with minors. See United States v. Tashbook, No. 01-CR-20160, Dkt. No. 162 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2002). Otisville is a medium-security federal correctional institute operated by the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) that includes a minimum-security satellite camp (the “Camp”). (See Decl. of Robert Schreffler in Opp'n to Pet. (“Schreffler Decl.”) ¶ 3 (Dkt. No. 14).) Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, BOP has implemented various protocols throughout its facilities- including at Otisville and the Camp-to reduce the spread of infection. (See Id. ¶ 5.) These measures include severely limiting the movement of inmates and detainees among and within its facilities and permitting inmate gathering only to the extent necessary to facilitate essential services. (See id.) At Otisville, every newly admitted inmate is screened upon arrival for COVID-19 exposure risk factors and symptoms so that each inmate can be sorted into an appropriate housing unit. (See Id. ¶ 6.) Inmates who have been exposed to COVID-19 but are asymptomatic are placed in the Quarantine Unit for 14 days; inmates who have been exposed to COVID-19 and are symptomatic are placed in the Isolation Unit and individually monitored. (Id.) Thereafter, any inmate who has been in contact with an inmate showing symptoms of COVID-19 is placed in the Quarantine Unit for 14 days. (Id.)
On June 16, 2020, Petitioner was tested for COVID-19 after a possible exposure to a COVID-19 positive inmate, and his entire housing unit was restricted to only allow ten inmates outside for approximately one hour at a time per day. (See Id. ¶ 7.) Although Petitioner's test from that date came back negative, Petitioner was placed in the Quarantine Unit on June 23, 2020 along with the rest of his housing unit, because an inmate in the housing unit tested positive. (See id.)[1] Petitioner was then re-tested 14 days later-on July 7, 2020-in accordance with BOP policy. (See id.) While this test also came back negative two days later-on July 9, 2020-Petitioner remained in quarantine with the rest of his housing unit until the test results from all of the inmates in Petitioner's housing unit came back. (See id.) Petitioner was released back into the general population on July 17, 2020. (See Id. at ¶ 9.)
While Petitioner was in quarantine, he retained full access to his medications and medical treatment, though his access to educational and religious programming was limited in a manner to prevent spreading the virus. (See Id. ¶ 8.) Petitioner did not have access to recreation while quarantined, because Otisville's Quarantine Unit does not have an outdoor area and quarantined inmates are not permitted to mix with general population inmates per BOP policy. (See id.)[2]
B. Procedural History
On July 1, 2020-prior to Petitioner's release back into the general population- Petitioner submitted the instant Petition. (See Pet.) Respondent filed a Memorandum of Law opposing the Petition on September 9, 2020. (See Resp't's Mem. of Law in Opp'n to Pet. (Dkt. No. 12); Schreffler Decl.; Decl. of Marc Peakes in Opp'n to Pet. (Dkt. No. 13).) On October 5, 2020, Petitioner filed a request for the appointment of pro bono counsel, (see Dkt. No. 20), in addition to a request for an extension of time to reply, in which Petitioner included several substantive arguments, (see Dkt. No. 21). On January 5, 2021, Judge Davison denied without prejudice Petitioner's request for the appointment of counsel, (see Dkt. No. 31), but granted Petitioner's request for an extension of time to reply to the extent that Judge Davison agreed to consider the arguments Petitioner set forth in the same request, (see Dkt. No. 32). On January 22, 2021, Petitioner sought reconsideration of Judge Davison's January 5 orders, (see Dkt. No. 33), which Judge Davison granted on February 2, 2021, to the extent that Judge Davison granted Petitioner 30 days to file a reply in support of the Petition, (see Dkt. No. 34), which Petitioner filed on March 4, 2021, (see Reply (Dkt. No. 36)).
On April 22, 2021, Judge Davison issued the R&R in which he recommended that this Court deny the Petition in its entirety. (See R&R.) Petitioner filed the Objections on May 23, 2021, (see Obj's), to which Respondent responded on June 16, 2021, (see Resp. to Obj's). Petitioner has since filed a “Request for Judicial Notice and Appropriate Sanctions/Relief/ Corrective Action” based on certain issues that Petitioner has been experiencing with Otisville's
mail system, (see Dkt. No. 45), and a “(Renewed) Request for an Evidentiary Hearing, ” in which Petitioner included a proposed witness list, (see Dkt. No. 46).
II. Discussion
A. Applicable Law
1. Review of a Magistrate Judge's R&R
A district court reviewing a report and recommendation addressing a dispositive motion “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by a magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), a party may submit objections to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation. The objections must be “specific” and “written, ” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2), and must be made “[w]ithin 14 days after being served with a copy of the recommended disposition, ” id.; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), plus an additional three days when service is made pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 5(b)(2)(C)-(F), see Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d), for a total of seventeen days, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(1).
Where a party submits timely objections to a report and recommendation, as Petitioner has done here, the Court reviews de novo the parts of the report and recommendation to which the party objected. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3). The district court “may adopt those portions of the . . . report [and recommendation] to which no ‘specific written objection' is made, as long as the factual and legal bases supporting the findings and conclusions set forth in those sections are not clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Eisenberg v. New Eng. Motor Freight, Inc., 564 F.Supp.2d 224, 226 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2)).
Finally, pleadings submitted by pro se litigants are held to a less strict standard than those drafted by attorneys. See Fed. Express Corp. v. Holowecki, 552 U.S. 389, 402 (2008) (“Even in the formal litigation context, pro se litigants are held to a lesser standard than other parties.” (italics omitted)). Because Petitioner is proceeding pro se, the Court construes his pleadings “to raise the strongest arguments that they suggest.” Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474 (2d Cir. 2006) (per curiam) (italics and quotation marks omitted). However, this “does not exempt a [pro se litigant] from compliance with relevant rules of procedural and substantive law.” Traguth v. Zuck, 710 F.2d 90, 95 (2d Cir. 1983).
2. Standard of Review
As a preliminary manner, the Court agrees with Judge Davison that although Petitioner ostensibly filed the Petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, because Petitioner is clearly challenging the manner in which his sentence is being executed rather than his underlying conviction, his habeas petition is properly governed by 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (See R&R 1 n.1 (citing Carmona v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, 243 F.3d 629, 632 (2d Cir. 2001) and Thompson v. Choinski, 525 F.3d 205, 209 (2d Cir. 2008)).) Moreover, Petitioner does not appear to object to this conclusion. (See generally Obj's.) As such, this Court will construe the Petition as seeking relief pursuant to § 2241. See Chambers v. United States, 106 F.3d 472, 475 (2d Cir. 1997) (“We . . . hold that if a prisoner erroneously labels a petition as being filed under [§] 2255 when the relief it seeks is available only under [§] 2241, the mis-labeling must be disregarded in applying the gatekeeping provision. It is routine for courts to construe prisoner petitions without regard to labeling in determining what, if any, relief the particular petition is entitled to.”).
Because petitions brought pursuant to § 2241 challenge the conditions of an inmate's confinement, the relevant inquiry is whether the conditions in which the inmate is being housed
To continue reading
Request your trial