Vazquez v. Curcione
| Decision Date | 25 September 2013 |
| Docket Number | 11CV443 |
| Parties | Justin Vazquez, Plaintiff, v. Paul Curcione et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of New York |
(Consent)1
&
Before the Court is the defendant's motion for summary judgement (Docket No. 26).
The plaintiff, Justin Vazquez ("Vazquez") brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.2 The plaintiff claims that while he was incarcerated at the Erie County Holding Facility ("HoldingCenter") on March 14, 2011, officers "Parsons, Gayz, McEwen, Hubert and Oroszi" refused to allow him to visit with his mother and that the officers "forcefully removed" him from the visiting area and used excessive force to his "head, hands, and limbs, causing [him] excessive pain and moderate bruising. He also states that unnamed "medical and security staff" refused him medical attention. (Docket No. 1 at page 5). Vazquez further claims that on April 12, 2011, officers Ladestro, Brigman, Piegza, Balys, DeJoseph Lysarz and Wilbus used excessive force on him by spraying him with mace and punching and kicking him. He asserts that the defendants put him in a strap chair for over 6 hours without decontaminating him causing him to experience burning for hours. (Docket No. 1 at page 6). Finally, Vazquez claims that on February 8, 2011 he was placed on a segregation block where he "wasn't supposed to be" and he was assaulted. The plaintiff's complaint does not assert which, if any, of the defendants were responsible for placing him on the segregation unit, or who assaulted him there. (Docket No.1 at page 6).
A deposition of Vasquez was conducted on July 29, 2011 in connection with a Notice of Claim that the plaintiff filed concerning several issues, including the February 8, 2011 and March 14, 2011 issues raised in the instant complaint. (Docket No. 26-5). The plaintiff stated that while he was out at a court appearance, an inmate named Daniel Ciracina went into Vasquez' cell, stole his commissary goods and trashed his cell. (Docket No. 26-5 at pages 15-16). According to the plaintiff, because of this incident he was placed in the segregation unit by Lysarz (Docket No. 26-5 at page 17-18, 20). Vasquez claims that it was wrong for Lysarz to place him in the segregation unit because that unit was intended for "high profile" inmates such as murderers. (Docket No. 26-5 at page 17). Vasquez acknowledged that he never had any problems with any other inmate or staff member prior to the incident with Ciracina. (Docket No. 26-5 at page 21).
Vasquez claims that on February 8, 2011, an inmate named Brian Talley3 was reading the newspaper in the segregation unit's common area. Vasquez stated that he told Talley that he wanted to see the newspaper, and that Talley "threw the paper" at him. Vazquez stated that he felt disrespected by Talley and told Talley not to throw the newspaper at him because he was "not a punk." (Docket No. 26-5 at page 23). The plaintiff asserts that Talley then went into his cell, put on his sneakers, came back out and "sucker punched" the plaintiff. Vasquez stated that he proceeded to fight back and that after a "couple of minutes" Willigus arrived and told Vasquez and Talley to "break it up" at which point they stopped fighting. (Docket No. 26-5 at page 24-25).Vasquez asserts that Wiligus was not at her post when the fight began (Docket No. 26-5 at page 30) and argues that if she had been at her post, Talley would not have attacked Vasquez. (Docket No. 32 at page 13). Vasquez also feels that he was improperly disciplined as a result of the incident because Wiligus stated that Vasquez was the aggressor. (Docket No. 26-5 at page 30). The incident report filed by Lysarz stated that Vasquez, Talley and the other witnesses all agreed that the altercation was over the newspaper. Vasquez claimed that Talley hit him first; Talley claimed that Vasquez hit Talley first. Witnesses identified as "Ricardo McCray and Allen Tomaski"4 informed Lysarz that Vasquez threw the first punch. (Docket No. 26-4). Vasquez suffered a few bruises and a split lip for which he was taken to the hospital for stitches. (Docket No. 26-5 at pages 25-26). He also claimed that he aggravated a back injury he originallysustained in a 2004 car accident. (Docket No. 26-5 at page 33). The plaintiff states that the 2004 car accident left his back "misaligned" and that he was issued a "no physical activity" order when he was incarcerated in 2006. (Docket No. 26-5 at page 36).
The plaintiff also testified that he was assaulted by inmate Robert Pope (Docket No. 26-5 at page 37-44); and that a Deputy Sheriff took his commissary goods from his cell (Docket No. 26-5 at pages 44-46). These claims are not asserted in the instant action.
Vasquez testified regarding the March 14, 2011 incident which is the basis of the plaintiff's first claim in this case. He claims he was denied a visit with his mother and assaulted by various defendants. According to the plaintiff, as he was entering the visitation room he was accused of talking to another inmate and told that his visit was going to be denied because "cross-talking" between inmates in the visitation room is prohibited. Vasquez claims that he was not talking to another inmate, but only talking to himself. When the officers told him to go back, Vasquez testified that he "told them I wasn't going back because I wasn't doing anything wrong." (Docket No. 26-5 at page 48). Vasques states that McEwen and Oroszi "grabbed [him] from the chair and dragged [him] to the back ... and then started applying excessive force to my limbs." (Docket No. 26-5 at page 49). When asked to further describe what he meant be being "roughed up" by the deputies, Vasquez testified:
(Docket No. 26-5 at pages 50-51).
The plaintiff stated that he was then taken to the isolation unit barefooted where he was left to sit for about an hour. (Docket No. 26-5 at page 51). The only injury he claimed resulting from this incident is that "it was hurting my back." (Docket No. 26-5 at page 52). Vasquez claims that he requested medical attention but was denied by Bryman. (Docket No. 26-5 at page 52).5
Vasquez was also questioned at his deposition about an incident on March 16, 2011 in which corrections officers named Husar and Pulleo allegedly took Vasquez's commissary goods and assaulted him (Docket No. 26-5 at pages 54-62). This incident is not asserted as a claim in the instant action. Although the deposition was taken less than two months after the plaintiff filed the complaint in this matter, the April 12, 2011 incident which forms the basis of the plaintiff's second claim in this case was not discussed during the deposition.
The defendants have filed a motion for summary judgement. (Docket No. 26).
Summary judgment is appropriate where there are no issues of material fact in dispute, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Trans Sport, Inc. v. Starter Sportswear, Inc., 964 F. 2d 186, 188 (2nd Cir. 1992) citing Bryant v. Maffucci, 923 F.2d 979, 982 (2d Cir. 1991). The non-moving party must, "demonstrate to the court the existence of a genuine issue of material fact." Lendino v. Trans Union Credit Information, Co., 970 F.2d 1110, 1112 (2nd Cir. 1992), citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324 (1986). A fact is material:
when its resolution would "affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law" and a dispute about a material fact is genuine "if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-moving party."
General Electric Company v. New York State Department of Labor, 936 F.2d 1448, 1452 (2nd Cir. 1991), quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). "The non-moving party must come forward with enough evidence to support a jury verdict ... and the ... motion will not be defeated merely ... on the basis of conjecture or surmise." Trans Sport, supra, 964 F.2d at 188. Summary judgment is appropriate "[w]here the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party." Nippon Fire & Marine Ins. Co., Ltd. v. Skyway Freight Systems, Inc., 235 F.3d 53 (2nd Cir. 2000) quoting Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986).
The plaintiff claims that defendant Lysarz and Wiligus failed to protect him by placing him in the segregation unit and preventing him from being attacked by Talley. The defendants argue that the claim must fail because there was no history of prior incidents between the two inmates.
While the parties have analyzed the plaintiff's failure-to-protect claim as being brought under the Eighth Amendment, because Vasquez is a pretrial detainee in state custody, his claim is to be analyzed under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Caiozzo v. Koreman,581 F.3d 63 (2d. Cir. 2009)(a person detained prior to conviction receives protection against mistreatment at the hands of prison officials under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment if the pretrial detainee is held in federal custody, or the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment if held in state custody.); Scott v. Warden and Adm'r of Jurisdiction Correction Dept. and Medical Dept., 2010 WL 3785252 (S.D.N.Y.,2010); Lee v. N.Y. State Dep't of Corr. Servs., 1999 WL 673339, at *11 (S.D.N.Y. 1999); Glaze v. Byrd, 721...
To continue reading
Request your trial