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 prisoner civil rights action filed by Demore Fulmore ("Plaintiff") against New York State Corrections Officers Eugene Raimo, John Smith, and Jeremy Saunders ("Defendants"), is Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment. (Dkt. No. 16.) For the reasons set forth below, Defendants' motion is granted.
Generally, liberally construed, Plaintiff's Complaint asserts the following three claims against Defendants arising from events occurring on and after July 3, 2009, at Great Meadow Correctional Facility: (1) a claim that they violated his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment by using excessive force against him; (2) a claim that they violated his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process by issuing a false misbehavior report against him and "submitt[ing] false statements at [his] prison disciplinary proceeding"; and (3) a claim that they conspired to violate both his Eighth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (See generally Dkt. No.1 [Plf.'s Compl.].) Familiarity with the factual allegations supporting these claims in Plaintiff's Complaint is assumed in this Memorandum-Decision and Order, which is intended primarily for review by the parties.
On September 6, 2011, Defendants moved for partial summary judgment to dismiss Plaintiff's due process and conspiracy claims. (Dkt. No. 16.) Generally, in support of their motion for partial summary judgment, Defendants argue as follows: (1) Plaintiff has failed to state a due process claim, because a prison inmate has no constitutional right to be free from being false accused in a misbehavior report; (2) based on Plaintiff's factual allegations, and/or the admissible record evidence, Defendants are protected from liability on Plaintiff's conspiracy claim by the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine; and (3) based on the admissible record evidence, Defendants are shielded from liability on Plaintiff's due process claims by the doctrine of qualified immunity. (See generally Dkt. No. 16, Attach. 3 [Defs.' Memo. of Law].)
Generally, in response to Defendants' motion, Plaintiff argues as follows: (1) rather than asserting a Fourteenth Amendment due process claim against Defendants arising from the false statements use to initiate and conduct Plaintiff's disciplinary hearing, Plaintiff is asserting a First Amendment retaliation claim against them, based on his allegation that the disciplinary charges were issued against him as a result of his being "in the company of inmates perceived to be homosexuals"; (2) in any event, "[t]he substantive due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects a person's right to be homosexual and engage in homosexual conduct" in prison; (3) the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine is not available to Defendants because they took the actions in question to pursue their personal objective wholly separate and apart from the objectives of the correctional facility. (See generally Dkt. No. 18 [Plf.'s Opp'n Memo. of Law].)
Generally, in reply to Plaintiff's response, Defendants argue as follows: (1) Plaintiff's Complaint fails to assert a claim for retaliation under the First Amendment, or even allege facts plausibly suggesting that Defendants perceived him to be homosexual (or even that he is homosexual); and (2) Plaintiff's Complaint fails to allege facts plausibly suggesting that Defendants took the actions in question to pursue personal objective wholly separate and apart from the objectives of the correctional facility. (See generally Dkt. No. 21 [Defs.' Reply Ltr. Brief].)
C. Undisputed Material Facts
The following material facts appeared undisputed based on the admissible record evidence before the Court. On July 3, 2009, at approximately 10:40 a.m., Plaintiff was returning to his housing area from the law library at Great Meadow Correctional Facility. At that time, Defendant Raimo, aided by Defendants Saunders and Smith, used physical force against Plaintiff. Following the use of physical force against Plaintiff, Defendant Raimo filed a misbehavior report against Plaintiff, charging him with (1) assault, (2) engaging in violent conduct, (3) disobeying a direct order, (4) engaging in an unauthorized exchange of property, and (5) violating the institution's pat-frisk procedure.
More specifically, the misbehavior report described the incident as follows:
On the above time and date I observed Inmate Fulmore passing property to another inmate at the end of C-1 Company. I called Inmate Fulmore to C-Company desk and gave him a direct order to place his hands on the wall under [the] C-1 stairwell. Inmate Fulmore placed his hands on the wall, and abruptly threw his right elbow rearward striking me in the right side of my face. Body holds and force was [sic] used to control Inmate Fulmore. (Dkt. No. 20, at 38 [attaching Ex. G to Glickman Decl.].) Defendant Saunders signed off on the misbehavior report as a witness.
As a result of the misbehavior report, Plaintiff was subjected to an administrative disciplinary hearing conducted by Hearing Officer Andrew Harvey on July 20, 2009. Relying on the misbehavior report (as well as other evidence), Hearing Officer Harvey found Plaintiff guilty of all of the five above-described charges, except the charge of disobeying a direct order. The other evidence relied on by Hearing Officer Harvey consisted of the following: (1) the unusual incident report; (2) two use-of-force reports; (3) three memoranda exchanged between Defendants Raimo, Sauders, Smith and/or Sergeant Kline, describing the incident and subsequent use of force; (4) the testimony of inmate Nelson (DIN 07-B-2407); (5) the testimony of Corrections Officer John Rosati; and (6) the refusal testify of three of Plaintiff's inmate witnesses based on the fact ...