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.

Thomas Goodson v. Dale Artus

March 27, 2012

THOMAS GOODSON, PLAINTIFF,
v.
DALE ARTUS, SUPERINTENDENT, CLINTON CORR. FACILITY; "JOHN" MENARD, SERGEANT, CLINTON CORR. FACILITY; "JOHN" SILVER, SERGEANT, CLINTON CORR. FACILITY; "JOHN" RENADETTE, CORR. OFFICER, CLINTON CORR. FACILITY; AND "JOHN DOE," CORR. OFFICER, CLINTON CORR. FACILITY, DEFENDANTS.



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

MEMORANDUM-DECISION and ORDER

Currently before the Court, in this pro se prisoner civil rights action filed by Thomas Goodson ("Plaintiff") against the five above-captioned New York State correctional employees ("Defendants"), are the following: (1) Defendants' for summary judgment;*fn1 (2) United States Magistrate Judge David R. Homer's Report-Recommendation recommending Defendants motion be granted in part and denied in part; and (3) Defendant Renadette's Objection to the Report-Recommendation. (Dkt. Nos. 43, 46, 48.) For the reasons set forth below, Magistrate Judge Homer's Report-Recommendation is accepted and adopted in its entirety; Defendants' motion is granted in part and denied in part; and all of Plaintiff's claims are dismissed, except for his Eighth Amendment claims and his conspiracy claims against Defendants Renadette and Silver.

I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND

A. Plaintiff's Complaint

Construed with the utmost of special liberality, Plaintiff's Complaint alleges that on April 4, 2006, at Clinton Correctional Facility, the five above-captioned Defendants violated his constitutional rights in the following manner: (1) Defendant Menard threatened Plaintiff with bodily harm if he ever again exposed himself to a correctional facility nurse practitioner passing by his cell (as he was alleged to have done earlier that day, while he was using the toilet), in violation of the Eighth Amendment; (2) Defendant Silver sexually assaulted Plaintiff in a bathroom while escorting him to a physical therapy appointment, in violation of the Eighth Amendment; (3) Defendant "John Doe" sexually assaulted and/or failed to protect Plaintiff from the alleged sexual assault, by assisting Defendant Silver during the sexual assault; (4) Defendant Renadette failed to protect Plaintiff from the alleged sexual assault, by knowing of Defendant Menard's physical threat against Plaintiff, by having reason to know that Defendant Silver intended to harm Plaintiff, but failing to accompany Plaintiff into the bathroom during his transport to physical therapy, in violation of the Eighth Amendment; and (5) Defendant Artus failed to properly supervise Defendants. (See generally Dkt. No. 1.) Plaintiff also asserts a conspiracy claim against all Defendants, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, arising from the above-described events. (Id.) Finally, Plaintiff asserts various state law claims against Defendants, arising from the alleged sexual assault. (Id.)

Because this Decision and Order is intended primarily for the review of the parties, the Court will not recite in detail the remaining factual allegations giving rise to these claims, but will refer the reader to the Complaint in its entirety, as well as Magistrate Judge Homer's Report-Recommendation, which accurately summarizes those factual allegations. (Dkt. Nos. 1, 46.) As a result of these alleged violations, Plaintiff seeks injunctive and monetary relief. (Dkt. No. 1.)

B. Parties' Briefing on Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment

Generally, in their motion for summary judgment, Defendants assert the following five arguments: (1) Plaintiff has failed to allege facts plausibly suggesting, and/or adduce admissible record evidence establishing, the personal involvement of Defendants Menard, Renadette, and Artus in the underlying constitutional violations; (2) the Court does not possess subject-matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claims based on New York Correction Law § 24 and the doctrine of standing; (3) Plaintiff has failed to allege facts plausibly suggesting, and/or adduce admissible record evidence establishing, a claim for conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (4) because Plaintiff has failed to name or serve Defendant "John Doe," that Defendant should be dismissed from the action without prejudice; and (5) based on the current record, Defendants are protected from liability as a matter of law by the doctrine of qualified immunity. (Dkt. No. 43.)

Liberally construed, Plaintiff's response to Defendants' motion asserts the following three arguments: (1) Plaintiff has alleged facts plausibly suggesting a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 conspiracy claim; (2) based on the current record, genuine disputes of material fact exist precluding summary judgment on Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 conspiracy claims; and (3) based on the current record, a genuine dispute of material fact exists as to whether Defendants are protected from liability by the doctrine of qualified immunity. (Dkt. No. 45.)

C. Magistrate Judge Homer's Report-Recommendation

Generally, Magistrate Judge Homer's Report-Recommendation recommends that Defendants' motion for summary judgment be granted essentially for the reasons stated by Defendants, except with regard to Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 conspiracy claim against Defendant Renadette. (See generally Dkt. No. 46.) With regard to those claims against Defendant Renadette, Magistrate Judge Homer concluded that genuine disputes of material fact exist due to Plaintiff's assertions that (1) Defendant Renadette left Plaintiff alone with Defendant Silver shortly before Defendant Silver sexually assaulted Plaintiff, then resumed escorting Plaintiff after the assault, and (2) Defendant Renadette subsequently told Defendant Menard that Plaintiff had had two therapy sessions that day, one with physical therapy and one with Defendant Silver (indicating that Defendant Renadette knew of Defendant Silver's "proclivity to act outside the scope of his professional duties"). (Id. at 4, 11, 13.)

D. Defendant Renadette's Objection to the Report-Recommendation

Generally, in his Objection, Defendant Renadette asserts the following two arguments:

(1) there is no admissible evidence in the record from which a rational fact-finder could conclude that Defendant Renadette knew or should have known, before he left Plaintiff alone with Defendant Silver, that Defendant Silver was going to sexually assault Plaintiff; and (2) there is no admissible evidence in the record from which a rational fact-finder could conclude that Defendant Renadette knew or should have known, after he resumed escorting Plaintiff, that Defendant Silver had sexually assaulted Plaintiff, because (a) after the alleged assault Plaintiff acted as if everything was normal, and (b) it is entirely speculative to conclude ...


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.