Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

FOREMAN v. GOORD

February 27, 2004.

KENYAITTA BENJAMIN FOREMAN, Plaintiff, -against- COMM. GOORD; D. SELSKY SHU DIR.; SUPT., GREINER; LT. KEYSER; C.O. OLLERNSHAW; D., THORNTON, SUPT. OF ADMIN.; CAPT. MORTON; C.O. BUTENHOFF; DAILY (PSU); 2 PSU UNIT CHIEFS; C.O. THOMPSON; C.O. TROMBLEY; C.O. DALY; C.O. HENSCHEL; C.O. NORTON; PROVIDER RODAS; SGT. WARD; C.O. MAPES; LT. RUSSETT; C.O. HORMOZY; SGT. T. INGENITO; C.O. MITCHELL; DEPUTY SUPT. RICHARDS; HEARING OFFICER MADDOX; C.O. SCHNEIDER; CAPT. TOTTEN; C.O. SHEARING; FIGUEROA MED. EXAMINER; THATCHER, COUNSELOR DEPT. SUPT. OF SECURITY; DR. ABSINNI; HAPONIK, DEPUTY OF ADMIN.; C.O. TILLOTSON; C.O. DEMUNDA; C.O. SARLES; C.O. LAWYER; DSS THACKER; C.O. CORBELL; SGT. SCHWARTZMAN; C.O. PROPER; C.O. ELCOX; C.O. WELCH; COUNSELOR MILLS; SHU SGT.'S & C.O.'S; C.O. MCCLAIN; SGT. MONTEGARI; SGT. CENTANNI; SGT. TIERNEY; C.O. BRAUN; SGT. SCHALLER; LINDA LINDSAY; RN MEG OR PEG; C.O. HUTTEL, Defendants


The opinion of the court was delivered by: SHIRA SCHEINDLIN, District Judge

OPINION AND ORDER

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 Page 2 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 Page 3 administrative remedies.

 I. BACKGROUND

  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.

  A. Claims Allowed Page 4

  Plaintiff has sufficiently pleaded the following claims in his Amended Complaint.*fn5

  1. Eighth Amendment

  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 defendants had Page 5 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.

  2. First Amendment

  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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.