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.

Rasheen Davis v. Torres

August 29, 2011

RASHEEN DAVIS, PLAINTIFF,
v.
TORRES, MR. HARRIS, MS.FREEMAN, AND MR. PRESTON DEFENDANTS.



MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

NAOMI REICE BUCHWALD UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Pro se plaintiff Rasheen Davis ("plaintiff" or "Davis"), currently an inmate at Upstate Correctional Facility, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Officers Torres, Harris, Freeman, and Preston (collectively "defendants"), alleging violations of his constitutional rights while he was incarcerated at the Sing Sing Correctional Facility ("Sing Sing"). The defendants have moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to bringing this case.*fn1 For the reasons set forth below, the defendants' motion to dismiss is converted to a motion for summary judgment, and it is granted.

BACKGROUND

I.Allegations in the Complaint

In his Third Amended Complaint ("Compl."), plaintiff alleges that on April 7, 2009, while walking to his cell in Sing Sing, Officer Torres told him that he "still ha[dn't] learn[e]d his fucking lesson" and then allowed another inmate, Rasheed Helmet, into his cell. Plaintiff alleges that Helmet "put his hands on [plaintiff,]" and, as a result, plaintiff suffered two black eyes, was "red inside of [his] eye," and had "knots" in his forehead. Compl. at ¶ II.D. Plaintiff claims that he was not provided any medical treatment for his injuries (id. at ¶ III), and that the defendants violated his constitutional rights by denying him medical attention and failing to protect him from another inmate.

II.Procedural History

Plaintiff filed his original complaint in this case on January 14, 2010. He then filed an amended complaint on February 8, 2010, a second amended complaint on March 5, 2010, and a third amended complaint on May 21, 2010. Defendants filed their motion to dismiss on September 10, 2010.

We note that plaintiff has submitted numerous letters, affidavits, and other statements to this Court. As discussed further below, we have considered these submissions as part of the record.

III.Defendants' Arguments

Defendants argue that plaintiff's complaint must be dismissed because "the complaint contains no allegations that plaintiff exhausted his administrative remedies under the requirements of the PLRA." Mem. of Law in Support of Defs.' Mot. to Dismiss ("Defs.' Mem."), at 6. In addition, defendants have submitted three affidavits in support of their motion.

The first affidavit is from Frank Robinson, Sing Sing's Inmate Grievance Program ("IGP") supervisor. Robinson states that he is responsible for receiving and maintaining grievances filed by inmates at Sing Sing, and that he has access to a grievance log which contains a record of all grievances filed. Declaration of Frank Robinson ("Robinson Decl.") at ¶¶ 1-2. Robinson searched for grievances filed at Sing Sing by plaintiff and found none. Id. at ¶ 3.

The second affidavit is from Mark James, Attica Correctional Facility's IGP supervisor.*fn2 Declaration of Mark James ("James Decl."). In his affidavit, James states that he searched for grievances filed at Attica by plaintiff and found "no grievances regarding any incident that allegedly occurred during the time period from April 1, 2009 to May 31, 2009." Id. at ¶ 5.

The third affidavit is from Jeffrey Hale, the Assistant Director of the IGP Program at DOCS. Declaration of Jeffrey Hale ("Hale Decl."). Hale is the custodian of the records maintained by the Central Office Review Committee ("CORC"), the institution that renders final administrative decisions under the IGP. Id. at ¶ 1. In his affidavit, Hale states that CORC maintains files of grievance appeals and that its "computer database contains records of all appeals received from the facility IGP Offices that were heard and decided by CORC since 1990." Id. at ¶ 2. Hale conducted a search of DOCS computer records relating to appeals to CORC and uncovered one appeal filed by plaintiff involving an unrelated incident that occurred on June 9, 2010. Id. at ¶ 5. Hale found no record of any appeal to CORC relating to the conduct at issue in this case. See id. at ¶ 6.

DISCUSSION

I.Legal ...


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.