Walker v. Schult
| Decision Date | 09 August 2016 |
| Docket Number | 9:11-CV-0287 (LEK/DJS) |
| Parties | ELLIS WALKER, Plaintiff, v. DEBORAH G. SCHULT, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York |
On March 11, 2011, Plaintiff brought this action pro se, claiming that his cell conditions at Ray Brook Correctional Facility ("FCI Ray Brook") amounted to constitutional violations of his Eighth Amendment rights. Dkt. No. 1 ("Complaint"). Defendants made a Partial Motion for Summary Judgment on June 11, 2014, seeking to dismiss the Complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies except for three limited issues. Dkt. No. 67. U.S. Magistrate Judge Randolph F. Treece issued a Report-Recommendation on October 15, 2014, that recommended denying Defendants' Motion. Dkt. No. 72. On December 11, 2014, this Court approved and adopted Judge Treece's Report and Recommendation in its entirety, denying Defendants' Motion. Dkt. No. 77. On November 30, 2015, Defendants once again moved for Summary Judgment. Dkt. No. 105. For the following reasons, the Court denies Defendants' Motion.
A. Material Facts
Plaintiff's claims arise from his experience during his incarceration in Cell 127 at FCI Ray Brook. Dkt. No. 105-2 ("Defendants' Statement of Material Facts") ¶ 1. Plaintiff was held in Cell 127 from November 2008 through April 2011, during which time approximately sixty inmates were assigned to the cell. Id. ¶¶ 1, 7. His cell housed a total of six inmates and had three sets of bunk beds, six chairs, two sinks, two toilets, six lockers, and a single writing surface. Id. ¶¶ 2-3. Cell 127 was located in the Mohawk B Unit, which had approximately 3522 square feet of unencumbered common space. Id. ¶ 4.
Plaintiff disputes Defendants' claim that the chairs assigned to inmates in each cell could be removed and used in the common areas or stacked for compact storage in the cell. Id. ¶ 3. Plaintiff disputes this on the basis that stacking the chairs would require the cooperation of other inmates, and that chairs and lockers were already being used as makeshift ladders for the bunk beds. Id. According to Plaintiff, "there is neither evidence that the inmates were allowed to leave the chairs outside the cells on a prolonged basis, nor that the chairs could be or in fact ever were stacked while in the cell." Dkt. No. 111-27 ("SMF Response") ¶ 3.
Plaintiff and Defendants also disagree about the square footage of the cell. According to Plaintiff, Cell 127 had approximately 173.91 square feet of space, approximately 92 feet of which was unencumbered. SMF Resp. ¶¶ 5-6. Defendants measure Cell 127 as having approximately 178.33 square feet overall, and approximately 118.5 square feet of unencumbered space. Defs.' SMF ¶¶ 5-6. Finally, Defendants allege that the inmates at FCI Ray Brook couldleave their cells for activities including "recreation, work, chapel, meals, educational programs, the library, medical appointments and [to] see visitors." Id. ¶ 8. Plaintiff disputes this, noting that the activities were "only available to specific individuals at designated times." SMF Resp. ¶ 8.
Plaintiff additionally states that FCI Ray Brook is a medium-security prison for males. Dkt. No. 111-27 ("Plaintiff's Statement of Material Facts") ¶ 1. Used as a six-person cell throughout Plaintiff's imprisonment there, Cell 127 was originally two separate two-man cells until the adjoining wall was knocked down. Id. ¶¶ 5-6. Plaintiff also claimed that inmates hung clothing from their bunks, further encumbering the space. Id. ¶ 37. Finally, Plaintiff contends that "FCI Ray Brook's overcrowded conditions are unacceptable under contemporary medical and mental health standards." Id. ¶ 38.
Defendants cite the 2006 American Correctional Association ("ACA") Accreditation Report, explaining that every housing unit at FCI Ray Brook had "air handler" units to provide heated fresh air in winter as well as exhaust fans. Defs.' SMF ¶ 9. The cell doors had food slots, or "wickets," that could be opened for increased air circulation. Id. ¶¶ 12. The cell's two windows were another source of airflow; Plaintiff and his cellmates would open them to dry the floors after cleaning, though opening the windows on a daily basis in winter made the cell colder. Id. ¶¶ 11, 14-16. Plaintiff would open the windows for his fellow inmates when they were cleaning and did not recall asking them to close them in winter. Id. ¶¶ 17-18. Plaintiff adds that the windows were sometimes difficult to open in the winter due to ice forming on the frame, freezing them shut. SMF Resp. ¶¶ 14-15, 18-19. Plaintiff never reported temperature or ventilation problems in Cell 127 to medical staff. Defs.' SMF ¶ 20.
Plaintiff disputes Defendants' claim that airflow surveys showed air circulation in Mohawk B to be "within required parameters" according to 2009 and 2012 ventilation testing. Defs.' SMF ¶ 10. Plaintiff contests this because these surveys occurred only twice and at predetermined times of which the institution was aware. SMF Resp. ¶ 10. Plaintiff considers this to be a misleading representation because institutional staff would "routinely do house-cleaning to make sure that all of the required standards were met on the day of the audit," therefore showing that these audits failed to provide real evidence of air circulation within the required parameters. Id.
Plaintiff agrees, as noted, with Defendants' description of the wicket in the cell door that could be opened in summer for increased airflow; however, Plaintiff asserts that this was only used as a "desperate measure" because of extreme heat, based on the testimony of Defendant Salamy. SMF Resp. ¶ 13. As for other sources of airflows, Plaintiff disputes that the windows could be opened because in winter they were often frozen shut. Id. ¶ 11.
Finally, Plaintiff disagrees with Defendants' assertion that the temperature and ventilation in Cell 127 never caused Plaintiff "any specific health problems." Defs.' SMF ¶ 21. Plaintiff claims that the winter and summer temperatures were "deleterious to his health." SMF Resp. 21.
Plaintiff also asserts that, during his time housed in Cell 127, outdoor temperatures in Ray Brook were as low as -36 degrees Fahrenheit. Pl.'s SMF ¶ 52. Further, while Plaintiff admits that he did not complain to medical staff about issues with temperature and ventilation, he did bring complaints to their superiors, such as the warden. Id. ¶ 53. Plaintiff states that he was not the only inmate to complain about ventilation problems in cells at FCI Ray Brook. Id. ¶ 54.
Plaintiff was assigned to one of the upper bunks in Cell 127 for some of his time there. Defs.' SMF ¶ 22. The bunks did not have attached ladders, and inmates could request lower bunks. Id. ¶¶ 23-24. Plaintiff adds that there were no ladders at all, and requests for bunks were not necessarily honored since moving bunks required a free space in a lower bunk. SMF Resp. ¶¶ 23-24. Plaintiff's bunk was less than 32 inches in width. Id. ¶ 27; Defs.' SMF ¶ 27. Plaintiff never complained about the width of his bed to FCI Ray Brook medical staff. Defs.' SMF ¶ 28.
Defendants claim that Plaintiff never requested a lower bunk; Plaintiff does not recall whether or not he formally requested a lower bunk and considers his request implicit, based on his filing of formal grievances about the absence of ladders. SMF Resp. ¶ 25; Defs.' SMF ¶ 25. Plaintiff also disputes Defendants' claim that the lack of ladders did not cause any "specific hardship." SMF Resp. ¶ 26. According to Plaintiff, the need to stack chairs and lockers to access the top bunk, as well as possibly stepping on others' belongings, heightened the risk of violence between Plaintiff and his cellmates. Id. Plaintiff also states that he once fell and injured himself climbing into the top bunk. Id. Plaintiff and Defendants dispute the width of the bunks; Defendants state that all bunks at FCI Ray Brook measure twenty-eight inches, while Plaintiff's counsel measured the bunk at twenty-seven inches. Defs.' SMF ¶ 27; SMF Resp. ¶ 27. Finally, Defendants state that Plaintiff "suffered no specific injury" due to the bunk's narrowness. Defs.' SMF ¶ 29. Plaintiff disputes this, claiming that the bunk was too small and narrow, which made it difficult to get comfortable. SMF Resp. ¶ 29.
Plaintiff and other inmates were responsible for cleaning their cells. Defs.' SMF ¶ 30. Mops, buckets, brooms, and toilet brushes were stored in an unlocked closet in Mohawk B which inmates could access. Id. ¶ 32. Cell inspections were conducted daily by unit staff and weekly by executive staff. Id. ¶¶ 37-38. Correctional counselor Jackii Sepanek and a unit officer inspected the Mohawk B cells (where Plaintiff's cell was located) during the week. Id. ¶ 39. Plaintiff's cell had two sinks and two toilets, and other facilities in FCI Ray Brook were available for inmates' use throughout the day. Id. ¶¶ 40-41. Plaintiff stated that his cellmates told him that urine and feces would "splatter" on the floor when the toilets were used, though Plaintiff never saw the splatter occur. Id. ¶¶ 42, 44. Plaintiff adds, however, that he did see the urine and feces on the toilet. SMF Resp. ¶ 42. Plaintiff's cellmates told him not to use one of the toilets because the sink for washing dishes would be splattered. Defs.' SMF ¶ 43.
Plaintiff disputes many of Defendants' statements about the availability of cleaning supplies to inmates. Though Plaintiff admits that he never reported to staff that supplies were being sold by unit orderlies, he does claim that the cleaning supplies were often not available to inmates; inmates had no cleaning supplies for periods as long as a month. Defs.' SMF ¶¶ 31, 33-35, 46. These cleaning supplies, which FCI Ray Brook provided, include scouring powder and pads, brooms, dust pans, toilet brushes, glass cleaner, general...
To continue reading
Request your trial