The opinion of the court was delivered by: SHIRA SCHEINDLIN, District Judge
Kenyaitta Benjamin Foreman, proceeding pro se*fn1, brings this
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his
federal constitutional rights. He asserts that approximately
fifty defendants including the top management, supervisors,
officers and employees of the New York State Department of Corrections
("DOCS") violated his rights while he was incarcerated at Green Haven
Correctional Facility ("Green Haven") in Dutchess County, New York.*fn2
Defendants now move to dismiss plaintiff's sixty five page
Amended Complaint pursuant to Rules 8 and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure ("Rules").*fn3 Defendants argue that the
"meandering" and "vertiginous" style of the Complaint violates
Rule 8 and that plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as
required under the Prison Litigation Reform Act,
42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). See Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to
Dismiss the Amended Complaint ("Def. Mem.") at 5, 9-10.
For the reasons set forth below, defendants' motion is denied in part
and converted in part into a Rule 56 motion for summary judgment on the
issue of plaintiff's exhaustion of
Plaintiff's original Complaint was received by this Court's Pro Se
Office on September 20, 2001. By Order dated September 6, 2002
("Order"), Chief Judge Michael B. Mukasey: (1) granted plaintiff's
request to proceed in forma pauperis; and (2) directed plaintiff to file
an amended complaint and cure the defects outlined in the Order.
See Order at 2. Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on October
30, 2002, and the matter was reassigned.
Plaintiff's handwritten Amended Complaint includes a 101-paragraph
"Statement of Claims" section ("Am. Compl. Claims") and a 15-paragraph
"Causes of Action" section ("Am. Compl. Causes"), and requests both
injunctive and monetary relief. Plaintiff claims that defendants violated
his First, Fourth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights while
he was incarcerated at Green Haven in 2001 and 2002.*fn4 Plaintiff also
claims to have exhausted his administrative remedies pursuant to New
York's prisoner grievance procedure.
Plaintiff has sufficiently pleaded the following claims in his Amended
In support of his Eighth Amendment claims, plaintiff describes in
detail several incidents involving excessive force by multiple
defendants, including beatings by correctional officers on May 22 and
July 7, 2001 and on at least two other occasions. See, e.g.,
Am. Compl. Claims ¶¶ 30, 51-58, 64, 66, 87, 101; Am. Compl. Causes
¶ 6. For example, plaintiff alleges that on May 22, 2001, he was
punched in the lower back by defendants Montegari, Trombley, and Welch,
and suffered extreme pain because of past kidney and liver problems.
See Am. Compl. Claims ¶ 30. He also claims that his
requests for medical attention after the incident were denied by
defendant Thornton. See id. ¶ 37.
Plaintiff also alleges that on July 7, 2001, he was ordered out of his
cell, handcuffed and subjected to a rough pat frisk by defendant
Henschel, tripped or stomped to the cement ground, and kicked and beaten
in the head, back, and stomach by defendants Henschel, Norton, and Daly.
See id. ¶¶ 51-58. Plaintiff also claims that he suffered
wrist lacerations and nerve sensitivity during this incident because
handcuffed him too tightly. See id. ¶ 64. He also
describes mistreatment by defendant Mitchell and another correctional
officer as they escorted him to the prison hospital after the beating.
See id. ¶ 65-66. Plaintiff further claims that he was
subsequently denied adequate medical care by defendants Rodas and
Figueroa and that his requests to defendants Superintendent Greiner and
Commissioner Goord for x-rays and other treatment for the July 7 beating
were denied. See id. ¶¶ 68-70.
Finally, plaintiff alleges that he was the victim of physical attacks
by unidentified correctional officers on an unspecified date after July
7, 2001, and by defendant Norton and another correctional officer in May
2002. See id. ¶¶ 87, 101.
In support of his First Amendment claims, plaintiff alleges that
defendants tampered with his mail and interfered with his access to legal
materials and to the courts. See, e.g.. id. ¶¶ 13-14, 20,
81, 86, 94. Plaintiff claims, for example, that defendant Daily refused
to help plaintiff obtain law library services. See id. ¶
14. He also claims that he was ...