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.

Dwayne Singleton v. Correction Officer Ms. Davis #17146

March 7, 2012

DWAYNE SINGLETON,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
CORRECTION OFFICER MS. DAVIS #17146, CORRECTION OFFICER MS. ELLIS, CORRECTION OFFICER ABRUZZO #17983, CORRECTION OFFICER MS. PHILLIPS, CORRECTION OFFICER MS. HART #13610, CORRECTION OFFICER MS. RIVERA, CORRECTION OFFICER MS. NOEL, CORRECTION OFFICER LUPE, CORRECTION OFFICER MS. AUSTIN, CORRECTION OFFICER PARKER, CORRECTION CAPTAIN MS. VAS, MARIE GEORGES, MD, GRVC WARDEN, OBCC WARDEN, AND WARDEN, MANHATTAN DETENTION CENTER,
DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: John Gleeson, United States District Judge:

ORDER

On November 17, 2011, plaintiff Dwayne Singleton, currently incarcerated at the George R. Vierno Center ("GRVC") on Rikers Island, commenced this pro se action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. By order dated December 6, 2011, I dismissed without prejudice all of Singleton's claims except for those against the New York Supreme Court, which I dismissed with prejudice, and I granted Singleton 30 days to file an amended complaint. On December 30, 2011, Singleton filed an amended complaint (the "Complaint")*fn1 and requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP").*fn2 I hereby grant Singleton's IFP application and dismiss the

Complaint in part, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A and 1915(e)(2)(B) .

BACKGROUND

In my December 6, 2011 Order dismissing Singleton's initial complaint, I found that his claims against the New York Supreme Court were barred by the Eleventh Amendment and I dismissed those claims with prejudice. I also dismissed without prejudice all of Singleton's remaining claims because I determined that Singleton's factual allegations were insufficient to state a plausible claim for relief.

With some exceptions, the factual allegations in the Complaint are substantially similar to those raised in Singleton's initial complaint. According to the Complaint, in October 2009, Singleton was transferred from an upstate facility to the Otis Bantum Correction Center ("OBCC") on Riker's Island, where he was placed in solitary confinement without a hearing. Compl. at 6-7. At some point thereafter, Singleton was transferred to the GRVC, where he continued to be held in solitary confinement -- also without a hearing -- until May 2010. Compl. at 10. Although he was later transferred to the Manhattan Detention Complex ("MDC"), Singleton was returned to solitary confinement at the OBCC on September 6, 2011, from which he was transferred to solitary confinement at the GRVC on September 28, 2011-- again without a hearing. Compl. at 9, 15.

Singleton received poor treatment while he was at the OBCC and the GRVC. He alleges that while he was at the OBCC, Officers Abruzzo and Ellis said threatening things to him regarding his food, Compl. at 14-15, and that Officer Phillips did not deliver his mail, Compl. at 14. He claims that while he was at the GRVC, Officer Hart stole his mail, Compl. at 16-20;

Officers Davis, Rivera, and Lupe cut off his telephone access, Compl. at 21-22; Officers Noel and Lupe denied him food multiple times, Compl. at 12; and Officers Austin and Davis threatened him and made crude comments to him, Compl. at 21. Furthermore, Singleton alleges that Doctor Georges of the GRVC denied him proper medical care when he presented with a swollen testicle and a dislocated shoulder. Compl. at 22.

Singleton also complains of the conditions in which he was held at the GRVC, the OBCC, and the MDC. He alleges inadequate heating, insufficient lighting, and unsanitary showers in the GRVC and the OBCC, Compl. at 10-12, and he claims that there was no running water or working toilets for a week in the MDC, Compl. at 13.

Finally, Singleton alleges that, at some point during 2010, Officer Parker watched and did nothing while another inmate physically attacked Singleton, who was shackled at the time. Compl. at 8-9.

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

In reviewing the amended complaint, I am mindful that Singleton is proceeding pro se and that his pleadings should be liberally construed and held "to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9 (1980) (quotation marks omitted); accord Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir. 2009). Nevertheless, I must screen "a complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity" and thereafter "dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint," if it is "frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted." 28 U.S.C. §1915A. See generally Abbas v. Dixon, 480 F.3d 636, 639 (2d Cir. 2007). Similarly, I am required to dismiss sua sponte an IFPaction if I ...


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.