Vasquez v. Cnty. of Rockland
| Decision Date | 24 February 2020 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO.: 13 Civ. 5632 (SLC) |
| Parties | KIM VASQUEZ, Plaintiff, v. THE COUNTY OF ROCKLAND, SGT. KARL MUELLER, SGT. JOHN KLEBER, CORRECTION OFFICER JOHN KEZEK AND CORRECTION OFFICER PAUL OBACZ, IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITIES AS CORRECTION OFFICERS EMPLOYED BY THE COUNTY OF ROCKLAND, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
OPINION & ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
This is a Section 1983 action brought by Kim Vasquez ("Vasquez"), a former inmate of the Rockland County Jail, against the County of Rockland and several corrections officers. Vasquez alleges that, during a prior incarceration at the same jail, he had commenced a federal civil rights action asserting violations of his right to free exercise of his religion under the First Amendment. He alleges that, during his detention in 2012, in retaliation for bringing the prior civil rights action, corrections officers subjected him to religious persecution and an assault that resulted in physical injuries, and then were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs. Defendants have denied all of Vasquez's allegations and now move for summary judgment.
For the reasons set forth below, Defendants' motion is GRANTED.
The Court summarizes below the facts, which are undisputed unless otherwise indicated, from the documents Defendants have submitted in support of their motion (ECF Nos. 97-100), Defendants' statement pursuant to Local Civil Rule 56.1 (ECF No. 101), and Vasquez's submissions in response to the motion. (ECF Nos. 102, 103, 110). The Court describes the facts "in the light most favorable to" Vasquez, the non-movant. Wandering Dago, Inc. v. Destito, 879 F.3d 20, 30 (2d Cir. 2018) (internal quotation omitted); Vasquez v. Reilly, No. 15 Civ. 9528 (KMK), 2018 WL 2768648, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. June 7, 2018).
When filing a summary judgment motion, Local Rule 56.1(a) requires the moving party to submit a "short and concise statement, in numbered paragraphs, of the material facts as to which the moving party contends there is no genuine issue to be tried." Local Civ. R. 56.1(a). In response, the non-moving party must submit "a correspondingly numbered paragraph responding to each numbered paragraph in the statement of the moving party, and if necessary, additional paragraphs containing a separate, short and concise statement of additional material facts as to which it is contended that there exists a genuine issue to be tried." Local Civ. R. 56.1(b). "A pro se litigant is not excused from this rule," Brandever v. Port Imperial Ferry Corp., No. 13 Civ. 2813, 2014 WL 1053774, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 13, 2014), and "[a] nonmoving party's failure to respond to a Rule 56.1 statement permits the court to conclude that the facts asserted in the statement are uncontested and admissible." T.Y. v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Educ., 584 F.3d 412, 418 (2d Cir. 2009); Vasquez, 2018 WL 2768648, at *1 n.1. In this case, Defendants served and filed their Rule 56.1 statement (ECF No. 101), along with a statement pursuant to Local Civil Rule 56.2notifying Vasquez of the potential consequences of not responding to the motion. (See ECF No. 97-1 (Notice to Pro Se Litigant); ECF No. 98 (Certificate of Service)). Despite this notice, Vasquez did not submit a response to Defendants' 56.1 Statement, and therefore, the Court may conclude that the facts in Defendants 56.1 Statement are uncontested and admissible. See Vasquez, 2018 WL 2768648, at *1 n.1; Brandever, 2014 WL 1053774, at *3.
In the absence of a response from Vasquez that meets the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this Court's Local Civil Rules, the Court must still afford "special solicitude" to Vasquez, a pro se litigant, and exercise its discretion "to conduct an assiduous review of the record," including his testimony, in deciding Defendants' motion. Holtz v. Rockefeller & Co., 258 F.3d 62, 73 (2d Cir. 2001); Vasquez, 2018 WL 2768648, at *1 n.1 (). To the extent that Vasquez, in the submissions he has made in apparent response to Defendants' motion, makes factual allegations without citations to the record or that contradict his sworn testimony, the Court will disregard those allegations. See Holtz, 258 F.3d at 73 (); Vasquez, 2018 WL 2768648, at *1 n.1 (); Berry v. Marchinkowski, 137 F. Supp. 3d 495, 502 n.1 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (same).
In 2007, Vasquez, who is a practicing Muslim, was serving a two-year term at the Rockland County Correctional Facility (the "Jail").1 (ECF Nos. 12 ¶¶ 18, 19; 97-10 at 19, 32; 97-15 at 2-3). In 2010, he and two other inmates commenced a Section 1983 lawsuit against the County of Rockland and Reverend Teresa Clapp, the Jail's chaplain, alleging that between March and May 2007, Reverend Clapp had distributed two religious booklets (the "Tracts") that contained defamatory statements about the Muslim faith. (ECF Nos. 97-15 at 2-3; 101 ¶ 19). The plaintiffs voluntarily withdrew their claims against the County of Rockland, and in 2011, the Honorable Robert P. Patterson, Jr. of this District, granted in part and denied in part Reverend Clapp's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the claims against her in her official capacity. (ECF No. 97-15 at 3-4). The claims against Reverend Clapp in her personal capacity proceeded to trial, following which a jury rendered a verdict in her favor as to each of the three plaintiffs' claims. (ECF No. 97-15 at 14-20).
In 2009, after being charged with drug possession and driving under the influence, Vasquez pled guilty to a felony charge and enrolled in a Drug Treatment Alternative to Prison program ("DTAP"). (ECF Nos. 97-10 at 12-17; 101 ¶¶ 2-4). In about May 2012, while he was in the final stage of DTAP, he was committed to the Jail for a term of 58 days. (ECF No. 97-12 at 13-19, 44).
Vasquez converted to Islam sometime in 1999 or 2000. (ECF No. 97-10 at 78-79). He testified that, as a Muslim, before he prays, he and his belongings must be cleaned through aprocess called ablution.2 (ECF No. 97-10 at 35). If he or his belongings came into contact with a dog, he believed that he would become "impure" and would need to perform research to learn "exactly" what cleansing steps he would need to perform. (ECF No. 97-10 at 43). He understood that cleansing following contact with a dog had to be performed "more intensely more times than a regular wash." (ECF No. 97-10 at 35). Vasquez testified that, in 2009, "[r]ight before the incident," he owned two dogs himself. (ECF No. 97-10 at 117).
On July 14, 2012, Vasquez was an inmate in the D-Wing at the Jail. (ECF Nos. 97-10 at 26, 29; 101 ¶ 7). On that date, from about 2:20 p.m. to 2:50 p.m., a K-9 search team conducted a drug search of D-Wing. (ECF Nos. 97-9; 101 ¶¶ 8-9). The officers who conducted the search were acting within the scope of their employment at the time. (ECF No. 101 ¶ 10). While the K-9 search was in progress, Vasquez and the other inmates were escorted out of D-Wing. (ECF Nos. 97-10 at 32; 101 ¶ 12). From where he was sitting during the search, he was unable to see the officers conducting the K-9 search. (ECF Nos. 97-10 at 31-32; 101 ¶ 13).
Once the K-9 search was completed, Vasquez returned to his living space to find that his crackers appeared to have bite marks from an animal. (ECF No. 97-10 at 34). He was concerned that the dog had touched his belongings, which would render him unable to pray using any items, such as his prayer rug, that the dog had touched. (ECF No. 97-10 at 43-44). With the time to begin his prayers approaching, Vasquez asked the officers where the dog had licked, but did notget an immediate answer. (ECF No. 97-10 at 35-38). He placed the crackers on the floor, and, he alleges, another inmate named Adam Gerber kicked the crackers "under the door" and out into the common area. (ECF Nos. 97-10 at 38; 97-12 at 24). Sergeant Karl Mueller, a Defendant in this action, and several officers whose identities Vasquez did not know, entered D-Wing, handcuffed Vasquez, and escorted him out of the area. (ECF Nos. 97-10 at 38-40; 97-12 at 27; 101 ¶¶ 25-26). Vasquez's disciplinary records indicate that the other officers were Defendants Sergeant John Kleber and Corrections Officers John Kezek and Paul Orbacz. (ECF No. 97-11 at 5). Vasquez claimed that the officers "hit [his] nose and face into the wall" while Sergeant Mueller handcuffed him. (ECF No. 97-10 at 39).
The officers then escorted him out of D-Wing to the "dirty tank," a holding cell that had two benches, a toilet, and a sink. (ECF Nos. 97-10 at 66-67; 101 ¶ 27). En route to the dirty tank, Vasquez claims that the officers "banged" his head into at least two doors. (ECF Nos. 97-10 at 55-58, 63; 97-12 at 36-37). Vasquez claims that, when he reached the dirty tank, his head was not bleeding, but he felt "dizzy" and was "throwing up and heaving." (ECF Nos. 97-10 at 52; 97-12 at 41-42). Once he was in the dirty tank, Vasquez alleges that Sergeant Mueller "took his nails and planted them into [his] chest and [] scraped downward," causing "blood spots" on his chest. (ECF Nos. 97-10 at 67-68; 97-12 at 42).
Suspecting he had a concussion, Vasquez asked for medical attention. (ECF No. 97-12 at 41). At about 4:00 pm, about an hour after being placed in the dirty tank, a nurse examined Vasquez. (ECF Nos. 97-8 at 71; 101 ¶ 29). She observed "no visual injuries," but noted that Vasquez was complaining of a headache and...
To continue reading
Request your trial