Thomas v. Delaney

• Decision Date: 13 August 2019
• Docket Number: No. 9:17-CV-1023 (GLS/CFH),9:17-CV-1023 (GLS/CFH)
• Parties: GAVIN C. THOMAS, Plaintiff, v. DELANEY, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York

GAVIN C. THOMAS, Plaintiff, v. DELANEY, et al., Defendants.

No. 9:17-CV-1023 (GLS/CFH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

August 13, 2019

APPEARANCES:

Gavin C. Thomas

16-A-0095

Coxsackie Correctional Facility

P.O. Box 999

Coxsackie, New York 12051

Plaintiff prose

Attorney General for the

State of New York

Attorney for Defendants

The Capitol

Albany, New York 12224-0341

JOHN F. MOORE, ESQ.

Assistant Attorney General

CHRISTIAN F. HUMMEL U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

REPORT-RECOMMENDATION AND ORDER¹

Plaintiff pro se Gavin Thomas ("Thomas"), an inmate who was, at all relevant times, in the custody of the New York Department of Corrections and Community Supervision ("DOCCS"), brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants CorrectionsOfficers ("C.O.") Delaney, Dupra, LaValley, Stoughton and Crowningshield for violations of his rights under the First Amendment and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act ("RLUIPA"), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc. Dkt. No. 45 ("Sec. Am. Compl."). Presently before the Court is Defendants' motion for summary judgment. Dkt. No. 55. Thomas opposed the motion, and Defendants filed a reply. Dkt. Nos. 60, 64. For the following reasons, it is recommended that Defendants' motion for summary judgment be granted in part and denied in part.

I. Background

A. Facts²

In support of the motion, Defendants filed a Statement of Material Facts.³ The facts arereviewed in the light most favorable to Thomas as the non-moving party. See subsection II.A.1 infra. At the time of the incidents described in the Second Amended Complaint, Thomas was confined at Clinton Annex Correctional Facility ("Clinton C.F."). See generally, Sec. Am. Compl. Thomas, an inmate who identifies as an adherent of the Rastafarian faith, entered Clinton C.F. in February 2016. Dkt. No. 55-2 at 161, 172-73.⁴

DOCCS Directive # 4914 ("Dir. #4914"), revised as of July 6, 2015, entitled Inmate Grooming Standards, was in effect at the time of the incidents described in the Second Amended Complaint. Dir. #4914 provides, in relevant part (Section III(B)(2)(a)):

Hair may be permitted to grow over the ears to any length desired by the inmate. The hair must be neatly groomed and kept clean at all times.

The only braids allowed are the corn row style. Corn row braids may only be woven close to the scalp in straight rows from the forehead to the back of the neck and braids may not extend beyond the hairline. No designs or symbols may be woven into the hair.

The dreadlock hairstyle is allowed. When worn, dreadlocks must extend naturally from the scalp and may not be woven, twisted, or braided together forming pockets that cannot be effectively searched. Inmates wearing below shoulder length dreadlocks must tie them back in a ponytail with barrette, rubber band, or other fastening device approved by the Superintendent. Note: Inmates of the Rastafarian religious faith may wear their dreadlocks in an approved religious headcovering.⁵

Dkt. No. 55-8 at 2, 9.

1. Factual Allegations Related to Delaney

On February 15, 2016, Defendant C.O. Delaney ("Delaney") issued a misbehavior report charging Thomas with creating a disturbance, harassment, and refusing a direct order. Dkt. No. 55-2 at 22; Dkt. No. 55-3 at 6. In the report, Delaney stated:

On the above date and approximate time, I attempted to counsel Inmate Thomas, G (16A0095) on inmate grooming standards. The inmate became argumentative. I gave the inmate a direct order to bring his hair into compliance. I then allowed the inmate to go to chow. He was stopped due to a keeplock in process in the hallway. The inmate returned to the doorway and was watching the incident through the window. I gave the inmate (2) direct orders to leave the doorway before he complied. The inmate returned to my desk and immediately started to argue with me over his unallowed hair style. The inmate was disrespectful. He then stated, "I have to get you to understand the common sense of this." During this verbal confrontation the inmate admitted he had been counseled previously on his hair style. There were (18) inmates on the dorm when the occurred. They all were standing watching our verbal confrontation.

Dkt. No. 55-2 at 22; Dkt. No. 55-3 at 6.

At the time of the incident, Thomas was "trying to start [his] dreads" and wore his hair in "braids." Dkt. No. 55-2 at 180. Thomas was placed in keeplock confinement pending a disciplinary hearing. Id. at 27, 181. On the same day that he received the ticket, Thomas removed his braids. Id. at 181. Thomas testified that he removed his braids because Delaney threatened him with continued keeplock confinement. Id.

On February 18, 2016, Lieutenant Rock ("Rock")⁶ presided over a disciplinary hearingrelated to the misbehavior report. Dkt. No. 55-2 at 18-21, 26-32, 183. Plaintiff plead "not guilty" and told Rock that he attempted to explain to Delaney that he was Rastafarian. Id. at 29. Thomas was found guilty of creating a disturbance and refusing a direct order. Id. at 18. Rock imposed a penalty consisting of fifteen days loss of recreation, packages, commissary, and telephone privileges. Id. at 18, 186.

In March 2016, Plaintiff filed a grievance (CLA-7172-16). Dkt. No. 55-2 at 189; Dkt. No. 55-9 at 15-16. In the grievance, Plaintiff stated:

I arrive[d] here at Clinton Annex Feb. 12 2016[,] on Feb. 16 2016 C.O. Delaney stopped me walking out the door for chow he then started to question me asking me about my hair saying that my hair was not the way it suppose to be[.] [H]e said that my hair can not go pass my hair line on the back of my neck. Then he had me placed in the box or keep lock (11-A2) and said I was harrassing [sic] his. I am being harrassed [sic] about my hair everytime I fixed it another C.O. has a different thing to say about it telling me to cut it off. I am Rastafarian and it is against my belief to cut my hair. On 3-14-16 a C.O. came on my visit while I was with my girl friend and he started to harrass [sic] me again. I never was told or shown any rule [in] regards to the way you can have your hair but I'm being treated as if I have disciplinary problems when its only hair. I just want to get to the end of this or I will take things to the higher ups attention. The rule is arbitrary. It is not fair and I just wanted to be treated such as. Look forward to a response thank you for your time and consideration.

Dkt. No. 55-2 at 36-37; Dkt. No. 55-9 at 15-16.

On March 29, 2016, the Inmate Grievance Review Committee ("IGRC") issued a response:

The grievant is advised pursuant to CAY-13419-03; CORC asserts that braided hair which extends beyond the hairline is not allowed. The grievant may wear long, unbraided hair in a ponytail, in accordance with Dir. #4914.

Dkt. No. 55-2 at 38; Dkt. No. 55-9 at 17.

On or about March 29, 2016, Thomas appealed the IGRC's decision. Dkt. No. 55-9 at 17. On April 5, 2016, the Superintendent issued a decision which read:

The grievant alleges that he received an improper misbehavior report for having braids past his hairline.

An investigation has revealed that the grievant received a misbehavior report on 2/15/16 concerning this issue, he may appeal in accordance with Directive #4932. Pursuant to Directive #4914, braids may not extend beyond the hairline. Dreadlocks or long hair may be worn beyond shoulder length, however, it must be tied back in a ponytail.

Upon conclusion of the investigation the grievant's allegations are unsubstantiated and there is no evidence of staff malfeasance.

Dkt. No. 55-2 at 40; Dkt. No. 55-9 at 19.

On April 7, 2016, Thomas appealed the Superintendent's decision to the Central Office Review Committee ("CORC"). Dkt. No. 55-2 at 195; Dkt. No. 55-9 at 19. Thomas claimed:

I am not appealing misbehavior report. I am appealing the C.O.'s misconduct after I received a misbehavior report after 2/15/16 also the way inmates are allowed to wear their hair as far as braids being past hairline because the back of your neck is not a hairline[.] [T]he hairline is on top of your forehead. And this rule does not give other options for people thats [sic] growing their hair besides leaving it out to get nappy or damaged to fall out which will happen to African-American hair. My hair is to [sic] long to stop on the back of my neck which the C.O.'s are forcing me to do or leave it out.

The rule on braided hair needs to be more specific on the way hair growers are allowed to wear as far as braids. There is no way my hair would stop on the back of my neck because of the length regardless of hair style.

Dkt. No. 55-2 at 40, 195-96; Dkt. No. 55-9 at 17.

On July 20, 2016, CORC issued a decision, unanimously denying the appeal:

Upon full hearing of the facts and circumstances in the instantcase, the action requested herein is hereby denied. CORC upholds the determination of the Superintendent for the reasons stated.

CORC asserts that corn row braids may only be woven close to the scalp in straight rows from the forehead to the back of the neck and braids may not extend beyond the hairline, in accordance with Directive #4914, III, B, 2, a. It is noted that the grievant was issued a Tier II MBR on 2/15/16 for creating a disturbance and a direct order. CORC notes that the enforcement of the standards of inmate behavior should not be construed as harassment by the grievant. CORC finds no malfeasance by staff.

With respect to the grievant's appeal, CORC notes that inmates with long hair or dreadlocks below the shoulder must tie hair in a ponytail with barrette, rubber band or other approved fastening device.

Dkt. No. 55-2 at 34; Dkt. No. 55-9 at 13.

2. Factual Allegations Related to Dupra

On May 11, 2016, Defendant C.O. Dupra ("Dupra") issued a misbehavior report charging Thomas with violating prison rules related to false statements/information, an unreported "ID" change, and refusing a direct order. Dkt. No. 55-2 at 56; Dkt. No. 55-4 at 6.

On May 19, 2016, Lieutenant Rock presided over a disciplinary hearing related to the misbehavior report. Dkt. No....