The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Norman A. Mordue, Chief U.S. District Judge
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
In these consolidated pro se actions, plaintiff, an inmate in the custody of the New York State Department of Correctional Services ("DOCS"), seeks monetary and injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 stemming from his civil commitment to the Central New York Psychiatric Center for participation in the Sex Offender Treatment Program ("SOTP"). Upon referral of defendants' motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 17), United States Magistrate Judge David E. Peebles issued a Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 23) recommending dismissal of all of plaintiff's claims with the exception of his First Amendment claim for injunctive relief against defendants in their official capacities. Defendants do not object. Plaintiff has submitted an objection (Dkt. No. 24).
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court reviews de novo those parts of a report and recommendation to which a party specifically objects. Plaintiff objects to most aspects of the Report and Recommendation, and, accordingly, the Court conducts a de novo review. Upon review, the Court accepts and adopts the Report and Recommendation in all respects.
In particular, as to plaintiff's Fifth Amendment claim, the Court notes that "mere coercion does not violate the text of the Self-Incrimination Clause absent use of the compelled statements in a criminal case against the witness[.]" Chavez v. Martinez, 538 U.S. 760, 769-70 (2003) (Thomas, J., plurality op.); accord Higazy v. Templeton, 505 F.3d 161, 171 (2d Cir. 2007). Thus, in the instant case, even if the potential consequences of failure to comply with SOTP requirements can be said to constitute coercion, plaintiff states no Fifth Amendment claim because he does not allege "use or derivative use of a compelled statement at any criminal proceeding against [him]." Higazy, 505 F.3d at 717 (quoting Weaver v. Brenner, 40 F.3d 527, 535 (2d Cir. 1994)). The Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Peebles that the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on the First Amendment damages claim. The Court has reviewed the materials attached to plaintiff's objection and finds they do not warrant a different result. Finally, the Court agrees that plaintiff states a claim for prospective injunctive relief on his First Amendment claim against defendants in their official capacities.
It is therefore ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge David E. Peebles (Dkt. No. 23) is accepted and adopted; and it is further
ORDERED that defendants' motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 17) is granted in part and denied in part; and it is further
ORDERED that all claims are dismissed except the First Amendment claim for injunctive relief against defendants in their official capacities.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw ...