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.

Michael Samms v. Brian Fischer

August 31, 2011

MICHAEL SAMMS, PLAINTIFF,
v.
BRIAN FISCHER, COMM'R OF THE DEP'T OF CORR. SERVS.; LUCIEN J. LECLAIRE, JR., DEPUTY COMM'R OF CORR. FACILITIES; S.B. DUNCAN, SENIOR INVESTIGATOR; NORMAN BEZIO, DIR. OF SPECIAL HOUSING AND INMATE DISCIPLINARY PROGRAMS; JAMES FERRO, STAFF INSPECTOR GEN.; H. REINHOLD, STAFF COUNSEL; MICHAEL HOGAN, CHAIRMAN FACILITY OPERATION; MR. DROWN, COMM'R HEARING OFFICER; DALE ARTUS, SUPERINTENDENT OF CLINTON CORR.FACILITY; S.E. RACETTE, DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF SEC. AND COMM. CHAIRMAN; AND JOSEPH P. PORCELLI, GUIDANCE COUNSELOR, DEFENDANTS.



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

MEMORANUM-DECISION and ORDER

Currently before the Court, in this pro se prisoner civil rights action filed by Michael Samms ("Plaintiff") against the eleven above-captioned individuals ("Defendants"), are the following: (1) Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) (Dkt. No. 44); (2) United States Magistrate Judge George H. Lowe's Report-Recommendation recommending that Defendants' motion be granted in part and denied in part such that certain of Plaintiff's claims be conditionally dismissed unless the deficiencies in them are corrected in an Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 61); and (3) Plaintiff's Objection to the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 63). For the following reasons, Magistrate Judge Lowe's Report-Recommendation is accepted and adopted in its entirety; certain of Plaintiff's claims are conditionally dismissed; and Plaintiff is permitted thirty (30) days from the filing date of this Decision and Order to file an Amended Complaint correcting the deficiencies in those claims or they will be dismissed with prejudice.

I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND

A. Plaintiff's Complaint

Plaintiff filed his Complaint in this action on March 25, 2010. (Dkt. No. 1.) Generally, in his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that, on January 11, 2008, he was transferred to Clinton Correctional Facility from Downstate Correctional Facility, and immediately placed in the Special Housing Unit without cause, where he remained housed for a period of approximately two years. (Dkt. No. 1.) For a more detailed recitation of the factual allegations asserted in Plaintiff's Complaint, the Court refers the reader to that Complaint in its entirety, and Magistrate Judge Lowe's Report-Recommendation, which accurately describes those factual allegations. (See generally Dkt. Nos. 1, 61.)

Construed with the utmost of special liberality, Plaintiff's Complaint asserts the following five claims against Defendants: (1) a claim that Defendants denied him the right to procedural due process in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment arising from his initial and continued confinement in administrative segregation; (2) a claim that Defendants denied him the right to substantive due process in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment arising from his confinement in administrative segregation (and his conditions of confinement in that segregation); (3) a claim that Defendants denied him equal protection in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment; (4) a claim that Defendants caused him to suffer cruel and unusual conditions of confinement in violation the Eighth Amendment; and (5) a claim that Defendants conspired to cause him to suffer cruel and unusual conditions of confinement (under the Eighth Amendment) in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Dkt. No. 1.) For a more detailed recitation of Plaintiff's claims, the Court refers the reader to the Complaint in its entirety, and Magistrate Judge Lowe's Report-Recommendation, which accurately describes those claims. (Dkt. Nos. 1, 61.)

B. Defendants' Motion

On August 20, 2010, Defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c). (Dkt. No. 44.) Generally, in their motion, Defendants argue as follows:

(1) to the extent that Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment due process and equal protection claims are based on his initial confinement in administrative segregation, those claims should be dismissed because the factual allegations of Plaintiff's Complaint, and the documents attached to his Complaint, do not plausibly suggest that his initial confinement in administrative segregation violated his rights under the Fourteenth Amendment; (2) to the extent that Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment due process and equal protection claims are based on his continued confinement in administrative segregation (i.e., for a period of approximately two years), those claims should be dismissed because the factual allegations of Plaintiff's Complaint, and the documents attached to his Complaint, do not plausibly suggest that his continued confinement in administrative segregation violated his rights under the Fourteenth Amendment; and (3) Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claim and Section 1983 conspiracy claim must be dismissed because his allegations with regard to those claims are entirely conclusory. (Id.)

On November 22, 2010, Plaintiff filed a response to Defendants' motion. (Dkt. No. 56.) In his response, Plaintiff argues that none of his claims should be dismissed because the allegations in his Complaint, coupled with the documents attached to his Complaint, plausibly suggest each of the claims asserted. (Id.)

C. Magistrate Judge Lowe's Report-Recommendation

On March 25, 2011, Magistrate Judge Lowe issued a Report-Recommendation recommending that Defendants' motion be granted in part and denied in part. (Dkt. No. 61.) More specifically, Magistrate Judge Lowe recommended that the following claims be conditionally dismissed unless the deficiencies in them are corrected in an Amended Complaint:

(1) Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claim to the extent it is based on his continued confinement in administrative segregation; (2) Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claim in its entirety; (3) Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claim in its entirety; and (4) Plaintiff's Section 1983 conspiracy claim in its entirety. (Dkt. No. 61, at Parts III.A., III.B., and III.C.)

Magistrate Judge Lowe further recommended that the following claims survive Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings: (1) Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claim to the extent it is based on his initial confinement in administrative segregation; and (2) Plaintiff's Eighth ...


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.