v. Coughlin, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12040, 1987 WL 34257 (S.D.N.Y. 1987)(although prisoner has a right to be protected from his known enemies, in order to prevail on Eighth Amendment claim, there must be some allegation of deliberate or callous indifference). Accordingly, plaintiff's Eight Amendment claims must fail.
III. Plaintiff's Transfer
Plaintiff also alleges that his transfer violated his Due Process and Eight Amendment rights. However, this claim must be dismissed because there is no constitutional right to be free from inter-prison transfers. It is well established that state prisoners have no liberty interest in remaining at a certain facility absent a state law or regulation conditioning such transfer on proof of misbehavior or other specified events, and the due process clause is therefore not implicated by a transfer. Matiyn v. Henderson, 841 F.2d 31, 34 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 487 U.S. 1220, 108 S. Ct. 2876, 101 L. Ed. 2d 911 (1988); Garrido v. Coughlin, 716 F. Supp. 98, 102 (S.D.N.Y. 1989). Plaintiff had no liberty interest in remaining at Green Haven since New York law does not place conditions on inter-prison transfers. Id.
Moreover, plaintiff's transfer, even if intended to be punitive, does not constitute cruel or unusual punishment unless it is made completely without penological justification. Green v. Wing, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9536, 1996 WL 383138 (S.D.N.Y. July 9, 1996); See also, Garrido, 716 F. Supp. at 103. Here, it is undisputed that plaintiff and Holmes were known enemies and could not be at the same facility. Since Holmes had at least 10 enemies within the Department of Correctional Services, it would have been difficult to transfer Holmes out of Green Haven because there were only a few maximum security prisons and Holmes had so many enemies. Accordingly, there was clearly a penological justification for plaintiff's transfer. Accordingly, plaintiff's claims with respect to his transfer must be dismissed as a matter of law.
IV. False Imprisonment Claim
Plaintiff alleges a state law false imprisonment claim with respect to his placement in keeplock for 13 days. Compl. P 36, p. 14. As an initial matter, to the extent plaintiff brings this pendent state law claim against the individual defendants, it must be dismissed because under New York Correction Law § 24(1), an officer or employee of DOCS may not be sued in his personal capacity. See Baker v. Coughlin, 77 F.3d 12 (2d Cir. 1996). Thus only DOCS is an appropriate defendant with respect to this claim.
A claim of false imprisonment requires four elements: (1) the defendant intended to confine the plaintiff; (2) the plaintiff was conscious of the confinement; (3) the plaintiff did not consent to the confinement; and (4) the confinement was not privileged. Gittens v. State of New York, 132 Misc. 2d 399, 504 N.Y.S.2d 969, 971 (N.Y. Ct. Cl. 1986). A prisoner can succeed on a false imprisonment claim only where he has "sufficiently pleaded that he had been subjected to punitive segregation for no legitimate reason and without the rudimentary protections of due process." 504 N.Y.S.2d at 972. Here, I find that plaintiff can prove no set of facts which would entitle him to relief in his favor. Plaintiff was placed in keeplock due to a threat to his own life and the life of other inmates based on the placement of Holmes in Green Haven. He was there for a comparatively brief period of time for a legitimate purpose -- his safety and the safety of others. Plaintiff was not denied the rudimentary protections of due process. Plaintiff admits that the prison attempted to hold a hearing on his disciplinary charges, but that the hearing was adjourned several times due to his requests to call witnesses and to recuse the hearing officer. The hearing was never completed due to his subsequent transfer and as a result the charges were completely expunged from his record. Accordingly, plaintiff's false imprisonment claim must be dismissed.
For the foregoing reasons, defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.
New York, New York
February 11, 1998
Harold Baer, Jr.