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.

Hill v. Chalanor

March 25, 2010

MICHAEL HILL, PLAINTIFF,
v.
DR. ROBERT CHALANOR, COXSACKIE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY; MARGARET FRANKLIN, NURSE ADMINISTRATOR, COXSACKIE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY; ANNE COLE, SUPERINTENDENT OF HEALTH SERVICES, COXSACKIE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY; JOY ALBRIGHT, NURSE, COXSACKIE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY; GLENN S. GOORD, COMMISSIONER OF D.O.C.S.; DOMINIC MANTELLO, SUPERINTENDENT, COXSACKIE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY; AND M. OLIVER, CORRECTIONAL GUARD, COXSACKIE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY; DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Glenn T. Suddaby, United States District Judge

DECISION and ORDER

Currently before the Court in this pro se prisoner civil rights action filed by Michael Hill ("Plaintiff") are (1) Defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted (Dkt. No. 67), (2) Plaintiff's cross-motion to amend his Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. Nos. 76, 77), (3) United States Magistrate Judge George H. Lowe's Report-Recommendation recommending that Defendants' motion be granted in its entirety and that Plaintiff's cross-motion be denied (Dkt. No. 78), and (4) Plaintiff's Objections to the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 81). For the reasons set forth below, the Report-Recommendation is accepted and adopted in its entirety, Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted, Plaintiff's cross-motion to amend is denied, and Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint is dismissed.

I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND

A. Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint

On April 6, 2006, Plaintiff filed his original Complaint in this action. (Dkt. No. 1.) On May 4, 2006, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. (Dkt. No. 8.) On February 22, 2008, after being granted permission by the Court, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint. (Dkt. No. 61.) Liberally construed, Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint alleges that, between approximately August 29, 2000 and July 21, 2004, while he was incarcerated at Coxsackie Correctional Facility in Coxsackie, New York ("Coxsackie C.F."), his civil rights were violated in the following manner: (1) Defendant Oliver violated his First Amendment rights by retaliating against him for filing complaints; (2) Defendants Oliver, Albright, Franklin, and Chalanor violated his Eighth Amendment rights by exhibiting deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs; (3) Defendants Cole, Mantello, and Franklin violated his Eighth Amendment rights by failing to protect him from the abuse of the guards, the doctor and other medical staff; and (4) Defendant Goord violated his constitutional rights by having a policy in place that enables the alleged constitutional violations to occur, and by failing to prevent the alleged constitutional violations.

For a more detailed recitation of the allegations set forth in Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint, the Court refers the reader to the Second Amended Complaint in its entirety.

B. The Parties' Current Motions

On April 10, 2008, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). (Dkt. No. 67.) In their motion to dismiss, Defendants argue as follows: (1) the Eleventh Amendment bars any claims asserted by Plaintiff against the supervisory Defendants in their official capacities; (2) Plaintiff has failed to allege facts plausibly suggesting that Defendants Goord, Franklin, and Montello were personally involved in the alleged constitutional violations; (3) Plaintiff has failed to allege facts plausibly suggesting an Eighth Amendment claim for medical indifference against Defendants Cole, Chalanor and Albright; and (4) Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Oliver are barred by the doctrines of collateral estoppel, res judicata, and the statute of limitations.*fn1 (Id.)

On May 29, 2008, Plaintiff submitted his response in opposition to Defendants' motion. (Dkt. No. 70.) In his response, Plaintiff argues as follows: (1) the Eleventh Amendment does not bar his claims against Defendants in their individual capacities; (2) his claims against Defendant Oliver should not be dismissed because Defendants failed to oppose these claims pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(b)(3) of the Local Rules of Practice for this Court; (3) the Second Amended Complaint alleges facts plausibly suggesting that Defendants Goord, Franklin, and Montello failed to protect him from (a) Defendant Oliver's threats, and (b) misconduct by the medical staff; and (4) the Second Amended Complaint alleges facts plausibly suggesting that Defendants Albright, Chalanor and Cole were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. (Dkt. No. 70.)

On June 5, 2008, Defendants submitted their reply to Plaintiff's response. (Dkt. No. 71.) In their reply, Defendants argue as follows: (1) Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Oliver were previously dismissed with prejudice in Hill I, and this dismissal was affirmed on appeal; (2) the failure of the supervisory Defendants to respond to Plaintiff's complaints regarding one incident of allegedly threatening behavior does not constitute deliberate indifference; (3) Plaintiff's status as a pro se prisoner does not excuse him from having to allege facts plausibly suggesting the occurrence of a constitutional violation; and (4) Plaintiff's arguments regarding absolute and qualified immunity are inapplicable to the motion currently before the Court. (Dkt. No. 71.)

On March 3, 2009, Plaintiff filed a cross-motion to amend his Second Amended Complaint, and submitted a proposed Third Amended Complaint on March 16, 2009. (Dkt. Nos. 76, 77.)

C. Magistrate Judge Lowe's Report-Recommendation

On June 8, 2009, Magistrate Judge Lowe issued a Report-Recommendation recommending that Defendants' motion be granted, and that Plaintiff's cross-motion to amend be denied. (Dkt. No. 78.) Generally, Magistrate Judge Lowe's recommendation was based on (1) the doctrine of sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment, (2) the failure to allege facts plausibly suggesting either of the two elements necessary to state an Eighth Amendment claim of deliberate indifference to a serious medical need, (3) the doctrine of res judicata, and (4) the doctrine of limited supervisory liability. (Id. at 17-25.) In addition, Magistrate Judge Lowe liberally construed Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint as asserting three additional claims not addressed in Defendants' motion, which claims he recommended be sua sponte dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). (Id. at 26.) Familiarity with the particular grounds of Magistrate Judge Lowe's Report-Recommendation is assumed in this Decision and Order, which is intended primarily for review by the parties.

On July 14, 2009, after being granted an extension of time to do so, Plaintiff timely submitted his Objections to the Report-Recommendation. (Dkt. No. 81.) In his Objections, Plaintiffargues as follows: (1) because he requested declaratory judgment (as well as monetary damages) as relief in his Second Amended Complaint, his claims against Defendants in their official capacities are not barred by the Eleventh Amendment; (2) he alleged facts plausibly suggesting that his rash constitutes a serious medical need, and that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to that medical need; (3) his claims against Defendant Oliver in this action should have been exempted from the doctrine of res judicata pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), based on the fact that those claims resulted from Plaintiff's ...


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.