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.

Shawn Green v. Darwin Laclair

March 28, 2012

SHAWN GREEN, PLAINTIFF,
v.
DARWIN LACLAIR, SUPERINTENDENT, GREAT MEADOW CORR. FACILITY; ESTATE OF RICHARD W. POTTER, ADMIN. DEPUTY, GREAT MEADOW CORR. FACILITY; R.K. WOODS, CAPTAIN, GREAT MEADOW CORR. FACILITY; WINCHELL, SERGEANT, GREAT MEADOW CORR. FACILITY; G. BLOOD, GREAT MEADOW CORR. FACILITY; R. MCCLURE, CORRECTIONS OFFICER, GREAT MEADOW CORR. FACILITY; ELMI, IMAM, GREAT MEADOW CORR. FACILITY; T. NESMITH, NURSE PRACTITIONER, GREAT MEADOW CORR. FACILITY; AND JOHN DOE, 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 Shawn Green ("Plaintiff") against the nine above-named Defendants, are the following: (1) Defendants' motion for summary judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 (Dkt. No. 145); (2) United States Magistrate Judge David E. Peebles' Report-Recommendation recommending that Defendants' motion be granted in part and denied in part (Dkt. No. 152); and (3) Plaintiff's Objections to the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 155). For the reasons set forth below, the Report-Recommendation is accepted and adopted in its entirety, and Defendants' motion is granted in part and denied in part.

I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND

A. Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint

Generally, construed with the utmost of liberality, those portions of Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint surviving the Court's Orders of July 2, 2010, and February 18, 2011, allege that, while Plaintiff was incarcerated at Great Meadow Correctional Facility in Comstock, New York, his constitutional rights were violated by Defendants in the following manner: (1) Defendants Winchell and McClure retaliated against him for filing grievances in violation of the First Amendment; (2) Defendants Winchell, Nesmith, Elmi and John Doe denied him equal protection of the laws in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment; (3) Defendant Blood wrongfully denied him medications and physical exercisein violation of the Eighth Amendment; and (4) Defendants LaClair, Woods and Potter were personally involved in the above-described constitutional violations by creating the policies under which the violations occurred, recklessly supervising the employees who committed the violations, and/or failing to remedy the violations after being informed of them through report or appeal. (See generally Dkt. No. 93 [Plf.'s Third Am. Compl.].) Familiarity with the remaining factual allegations supporting these claims is assumed in this Decision and Order, which is intended primarily for review by the parties.

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

Generally, in support of their motion for summary judgment, Defendants assert the following four arguments: (1) Plaintiff has failed to adduce admissible record evidence establishing the personal involvement of Defendants LaClair, Woods, and Potter in the underlying constitutional violations; (2) Plaintiff has failed to adduce admissible record evidence establishing a claim for discrimination, retaliation, denial of exercise, denial of religious activities and meals, out and/or deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs; (3) based on the current record, Defendants are protected from liability as a matter of law by the doctrine of qualified immunity; and (4) Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden for obtaining a preliminary injunction, and his claims for injunctive relief are barred by 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (See generally Dkt. No. 145, Attach. 3 [Defs.' Memo. of Law].)

Generally, in opposition to Defendants' motion, Plaintiff asserts the following five arguments: (1) Plaintiff has adduced admissible record evidence establishing a claim for the denial of exercise (e.g., that there are no "daily housing block entries" indicating that he was allowed exercise during the entire 30 days that he was confined under keeplock status, and he was unable to exercise in his cell door to poor ventilation); (2) Plaintiff has adduced admissible record evidence establishing a retaliation claim (particularly a causal connection between the adverse action he experienced and his protected speech); (3) Plaintiff has adduced admissible record evidence establishing the personal involvement of Defendants LaClair, Potter and Woods in the constitutional violations alleged (through the three ways described above in Part I.A. of this Decision and Order); (4) Plaintiff has adduced admissible record evidence establishing a claim for discrimination against Defendants Winchell, Nesmith, Elmi and John Doe (for the first time identified as "P. Van Guilder"); and (5) Plaintiff has met his burden for obtaining a preliminary injunction. (See generally Dkt. No. 149, Attach. 2 [Plf.'s Opp'n Memo. of Law].)

Generally, in their reply, Defendants argue that, because Plaintiff has failed to properly oppose their Local Rule 7.1 Statement, he has effectively admitted the factual assertions contained in Defendants' Rule 7.1 Statement. (Dkt. No. 150.)

C. Magistrate Judge Peebles Report-Recommendation

Generally, Magistrate Judge Peebles' Report-Recommendation recommends that Defendant's motion be granted in part and denied in part. (See generally Dkt. No. 152.) More specifically, Magistrate Judge Peebles recommends that all the claims in Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint be dismissed, except for his Eighth Amendment claim against Defendant Blood relating to the alleged deprivation of exercise during Plaintiff's keeplock confinement, due to a genuine dispute of material fact that exists with regard to that claim, based on the current record. (Id. at 36-38, 54.) However, Magistrate Judge Peebles recommends that Defendants' motion be denied only without prejudice with regard to that claim, permitting Defendants to file a second motion for summary for summary judgment on that claim, within thirty days of the Court's Decision and Order on Defendants' first motion. (Id.) Familiarity with the remaining grounds of Magistrate Judge Peebles' Report-Recommendation is assumed in this Decision and Order, which is intended primarily for the review of the parties.

D. Plaintiff's Objections to the Report-Recommendation

Generally, in his Objections, Plaintiff asserts the following five arguments: (1) Magistrate Judge Peebles erred by not finding either (a) sufficiently significant adverse action against Plaintiff by Defendant Winchell or (b) a causal connection between Plaintiff's grievance and that adverse action (particularly considering Defendant Winchell's relationship to Scott Winchell, previously dismissed from this action); (2) Magistrate Judge Peebles did not give Plaintiff an adequate opportunity to conduct pre-trial discovery before issuing his Report-Recommendation on Defendants' motion for summary judgment; (3) Magistrate Judge Peebles incorrectly found that Defendant Elmi had a "legitimate penological interest" in failing to make accommodations for National of Islam ("NOI") religious services; (4) Magistrate Judge Peebles incorrectly found that Defendant Winchell had a "legitimate penological interest" in taking ...


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.