Trammel v. Coombe

• Decision Date: 05 September 1996
• Citation: 649 N.Y.S.2d 964,170 Misc.2d 471
• Parties: In the Matter of Reginald TRAMMELL, Petitioner, v. Phillip COOMBE, Jr., as Commissioner of New York State Department of Correctional Services, et al., Respondents.
• Court: New York Supreme Court

Page 964

649 N.Y.S.2d 964

170 Misc.2d 471

In the Matter of Reginald TRAMMELL, Petitioner, v. Phillip COOMBE, Jr., as Commissioner of New York State Department of Correctional Services, et al., Respondents.

Supreme Court, Westchester County.

Sept. 5, 1996.

Bennet Goodman, Yonkers, for petitioner.

Dennis C. Vacco, Attorney General, New York City (Garvin Smith, of counsel), for respondents.

MARY H. SMITH, Justice.

This is an Article 78 proceeding seeking to challenge the determinations made and penalties imposed by the respondents in a number of prison disciplinary matters.

The petitioner is a prisoner, convicted of robbery in the second degree as a second violent felony offender, serving an indeterminate sentence of five to ten years, ordered to run consecutively to the undischarged portion of a previously imposed sentence of four to eight years (see, People v. Trammell, 211 A.D.2d 527, 622 N.Y.S.2d 439 lv. denied 85 N.Y.2d 944, 627 N.Y.S.2d 1006, 651 N.E.2d 931). He was transferred to Sing Sing Correctional Facility in August of 1994. At the time of his arrival, he owed 510 days in the Special Housing Unit (SHU) as a result of numerous disciplinary infractions that are not the subject of this case. While in SHU petitioner was the subject of some two dozen misbehavior reports for acts ranging from assaults on staff and other inmates, weapons possession, refusal to comply with orders and harassment to numerous incidents of "unhygienic acts," a euphemism for conduct including spitting at staff members as well as hurling feces and urine at them.

The full spectrum of available penalties was imposed upon petitioner for these infractions. He was given additional SHU time (the total of which surpasses the maximum expiration date of his sentence); he was denied package, commissary, telephone and other privileges; and he was placed on a restricted diet. None of these penalties deterred petitioner from further violent outbursts.

On December 16, 1994 Superintendent John P. Keane issued a memorandum to petitioner outlining additional measures that would be taken as a result of petitioner's continuous violent behavior. Petitioner was ordered deprived of all property, both State issued and personal; he was placed under a restraint order; the restricted diet was continued and he was placed in a cell equipped with a plexiglass shield. Petitioner was informed that, upon completion of a 48 hour period without a Misbehavior Report, he would be allowed a mattress and blanket.

The following day, the deprivation order was put into effect. Deputy Superintendent Brandt Kehn spoke with petitioner about the order. Trammell refused to surrender his property. Several other staff members spoke to petitioner, but he persisted in his refusal to yield. Corrections officials then ordered the inmates in the adjoining cells removed. Petitioner was sprayed twice in the face with a "chemical agent" until he complied with an order to lie face down. Officers then entered the cell, restrained petitioner, cut his clothing off, and stripped the cell of its contents. Petitioner was left with one pair of undershorts.

Petitioner sought to commence this proceeding by requesting an Order to Show Cause. This Court granted the application by issuing the requested Order on February 6, 1995. On March 28, 1995 this Court granted petitioner's request for a preliminary injunction to the extent of removing dietary restrictions pending final determination of this matter. Petitioner was assigned counsel for this proceeding. By Decision and Order of this Court dated October 27, 1995 an evidentiary hearing was ordered. At the hearing, which took place on November 16 and 17, 1995 several witnesses testified, including corrections officials and a doctor who had examined petitioner. Trammell testified on his own behalf. Numerous documentary exhibits were also admitted into evidence.

By Decision and Order of this Court dated April 12, 1996 the respondents were ordered to arrange for a psychiatric examination and report on the petitioner. This Court received a copy of this report on or about June 26, 1996.

Petitioner raises several claims: he contends that prison officials have been deliberately indifferent to his medical and psychiatric conditions; that he was improperly denied participation in many of the disciplinary hearings held against him; and that the disciplinary sanctions imposed against him violate the Constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishments.

As to petitioner's contention of deliberate indifference to his medical condition, the record developed in this case demonstrates that petitioner was seen daily by a nurse and weekly by a doctor in SHU. At no time did petitioner voice any medical complaint to these individuals. In fact, Dr. O'Connell, a physician who reviewed petitioner's medical history and examined petitioner on November 15, 1995 testified at the hearing that he first learned of petitioner's medical complaints from papers filed by petitioner with the Court. The Court further notes that, having personally observed the petitioner during the course of the evidentiary hearing, it appears that he is a well-developed man in excellent physical health. There is thus no support whatsoever in the record for petitioner's contention.

Trammell's claim concerning his psychiatric condition is focused on his insistence that his disciplinary infractions are the result of an uncontrollable urge to violate rules that rises to the level of a mental illness. He believes that, rather than being punished for these transgressions, he should be treated as an individual suffering from a psychiatric disorder. The results of his psychiatric evaluation, however, suggest that while petitioner experiences paranoid ideations, he is not psychotic. He is fully aware of his actions and his conduct is volitional. He has therefore failed to demonstrate either deliberate indifference to his mental condition or that any of his violent acts are attributable...