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.

Doumin v. Carey

September 12, 2008

NICHOLAI DOUMIN, PLAINTIFF,
v.
SCOTT CAREY, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SERGEANT FOR THE ONEIDA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE; ROBERT MEYERS, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS LIEUTENANT FOR THE ONEIDA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE; RANDY SMITH, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SERGEANT FOR THE ONEIDA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE; EDWARD DIBIARI, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS A CORRECTIONS OFFICER FOR THE ONEIDA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE; THOMAS MARTIN, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS A CORRECTIONS OFFICER FOR THE ONEIDA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE; JEFFERY WINTERS, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS A CORRECTIONS OFFICER FOR THE ONEIDA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE; AND COUNTY OF ONEIDA, DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Neal P. McCurn, Senior District Judge

Memorandum, Decision and Order

I. Introduction

Presently before the court is a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 by all defendants against plaintiff, Nicholai Doumin ("Plaintiff"). Defendants are the County of Oneida as well as Oneida County Sheriff's Office Sergeants Scott Carey and Randy Smith, Lieutenant Robert Meyers, and Corrections Officers Edward DiBiari, Thomas Martin, and Jeffery Winters, each sued in his official and individual capacities ("Defendants"). Plaintiff opposes the motion and Defendants reply. The motion is considered on the submitted papers without oral argument.

II. Factual Background

Initially, the court notes that Plaintiff's response to Defendants' Statement of Material Facts does not comply with Local Rule 7.1(a)(3) of this court, which requires each denial of a material fact to include a specific citation to the record where the fact issue arises. See N.D.N.Y. R. 7.1(a)(3). To be sure, Plaintiff unequivocally denies only one of Defendants' material facts not in dispute, and fails to cite to the record therein. See Resp. to Defs.' Statement of Material Facts, ¶ 17, Dkt. No. 28. However, Plaintiff's response includes several partial admissions, or admissions with additional alleged facts, all but one of which do not include a citation to the record. See id. ¶¶ 7, 9, 10, 12-14, 16, 18. "A district court has no duty, on a motion for summary judgment, to perform an independent review of the record to find proof of either a factual dispute or the lack of a factual dispute." Monroe v. Critelli, No. 9:05-CV-1590, 2008 WL 508748, at *2 (N.D.N.Y. Feb. 21, 2008) (citing Amnesty America v. Town of West Hartford, 288 F.3d 467, 470 (2d Cir.2002)). Nonetheless, the court will discuss Plaintiff's response where it diverges from Defendants' Statement of Material Facts in order to provide a backdrop for Plaintiff's arguments in opposition to the pending motion. The following facts are not in dispute, unless otherwise noted.

Plaintiff became an inmate at the Oneida County Correctional Facility ("the Correctional Facility") on April 2, 2005. On June 18, 2005, Plaintiff injured his left ankle while walking down steps at the Correctional Facility. Later that day, Plaintiff requested medical attention by completing a form provided by the Correctional Facility. In response, Plaintiff contends that he did not immediately inform anyone of his injury inasmuch as his previous requests for medical attention had been refused. Plaintiff felt that any such requests would be futile. Shortly thereafter, he did register complaints continuing over a three day period, when the injury became more painful and swollen. No medical response was given to these early complaints.

Resp. to Defs.' Statement of Material Facts, ¶ 4, Dkt. No. 28. Plaintiff fails to submit any evidence to support his contention that previous to the June 18, 2005 incident he made requests for medical assistance, or that said requests went unanswered. Plaintiff does submit a copy of an "informal inmate complaint form" ostensibly completed by Plaintiff on June 20, 2005 wherein he states that he has severe pains from his "left heel and up" and that his left ankle is swollen. Ex. B to Aff. of Leon R. Koziol, Apr. 7, 2008, Dkt. No. 33. Plaintiff also states on this complaint form that "So far I've put 3! medical requests to be seen by the doctor. All in vain!" Id. (emphasis and punctuation in original). It is undisputed, as follows, that Plaintiff requested medical assistance on June 18 and 19, 2005. See Exs. C&D to Aff. of David H. Walsh, IV, Feb. 21, 2008, Dkt. No. 21. However, there is no evidence of a third request, as Plaintiff indicates in his complaint dated June 20, 2005, other than the complaint itself.

On June 19, 2005, one day after his initial injury, Plaintiff left his cell for breakfast, and then took a shower. Apparently, Plaintiff fell during his shower, and some hours later completed a second written request for medical attention for his ankle.*fn1 On June 20, 2005, Plaintiff was admitted to the Correctional Facility's infirmary, complaining of an inability to ambulate.*fn2 X-rays were taken of Plaintiff's ankle the next day, which were negative for fracture or dislocation, but revealed soft tissue edema, both medially and laterally.*fn3

Plaintiff remained at the infirmary until July 5, 2005, at which time he was medically cleared and released to the general population, without his objection.*fn4

After his release from the infirmary, and until his release from the Correctional Facility in November 2005, Plaintiff made no other requests for medical treatment.

Plaintiff commenced this civil rights action on September 18, 2006 alleging violations of his right to be free from excessive force and his right to be free from deliberate indifference to a serious medical need under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution as well as pendent state law claims for battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress against Defendants. Defendants now seek summary judgment on Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim as well as his pendent claims.

III. Discussion

A. Summary Judgment Standard

A motion for summary judgment shall be granted "if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). See also Beyer v. County of Nassau, 524 F.3d 160, 163 (2d Cir. 2008). The movants, here Defendants, have the burden to show that no genuine factual dispute exists. See Vermont Teddy Bear Co., Inc. v. 1-800 Beargram Co., 373 F.3d 241, 244 (2d Cir. 2004) (citing Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 157, 90 S.Ct. 1598 (1970)). Moreover, ...


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.