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.

Marcos A. Manon, Jr v. Albany County

December 12, 2012

MARCOS A. MANON, JR., PLAINTIFF,
v.
ALBANY COUNTY, DEFENDANT.



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 Marcos A. Manon, Jr. ("Plaintiff") against Albany County ("Defendant"), are the following: (1) Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint for failure to state a claim (Dkt. No. 22); (2) United States Magistrate Judge Christian F. Hummel's Report-Recommendation recommending that Defendant's motion be granted (Dkt. No. 34); (3) Plaintiff's Objection to the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 40); and (4) Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction (Dkt. No. 35). For the reasons set forth below, the Report-Recommendation is accepted; Defendant's motion is granted; Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed; and Plaintiff's motion is denied.

I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND

A. Plaintiff's Complaint

Plaintiff filed his Complaint on October 5, 2011. (Dkt. No. 1.) Generally, construed with the utmost of liberality, Plaintiff's Complaint claims that Defendant discriminated against Plaintiff based on his disability in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 120101 et seq. ("the ADA"), by wrongfully holding him in segregated confinement at Albany County Correctional Facility from some point in September 2011 through October 3, 2011 (beyond the expiration of a disciplinary sentence imposed on him for cursing at a correctional officer), because his prosthetic leg contained a metal screw. (Id.)

For a more detailed recitation of Plaintiff's claim and supporting factual allegations, the Court refers the reader to the Complaint in its entirety, as well as Part I of the Court's Decision and Order of June 12, 2012, and Part I of Magistrate Judge Hummel's Report-Recommendation, which accurately summarize that Complaint. (Dkt. Nos. 1, 10, 34.)

B. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim

On August 7, 2012, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). (Dkt. Nos. 22-25.) Generally, in its motion, Defendant asserts the following three alternative arguments: (1) Plaintiff's Complaint should be dismissed based on a lack of standing, given that Plaintiff does not allege facts plausibly suggesting that he has suffered an injury that is redressable by the Court; (2) in the alternative, Plaintiff's Complaint should be dismissed because Plaintiff has alleged facts plausibly suggesting that, before filing this action, he did not exhaust his available administrative remedies as required under the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1997 ("PLRA"); (3) in the alternative, Plaintiff's Complaint should be dismissed because Plaintiff has failed to allege facts plausibly suggesting that he suffered a physical injury as required by the PLRA (and any injunction sought by Plaintiff is moot, given that he was transferred to a correctional facility in Ohio following the filing of this action). (Dkt. No. 23, Parts I and II.)

In addition, in its reply, Defendant argues, inter alia, that, even if Plaintiff has satisfied the PLRA requirements, he has failed to allege facts plausibly suggesting that he is being excluded from participation in, or being denied the benefits of some service, program or activity, by reason of his disability. (Dkt. No. 32.)

C. Magistrate Judge Hummel's Report-Recommendation

On October 9, 2012, Magistrate Judge Hummel issued a Report-Recommendation recommending that Defendant's motion be granted and that Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed. (Dkt. No. 34.) More specifically, Magistrate Judge Hummel reported that, although he was not persuaded by Defendant's exhaustion argument, he was persuaded that Plaintiff's Complaint should be dismissed based on the following three alternative grounds: (1) Plaintiff has failed to allege facts plausibly suggesting that he suffered a physical injury as required by the PLRA (and he has failed to allege facts plausibly suggesting grounds for the award of either punitive damages or injunctive relief); (2) even if Plaintiff satisfied the PLRA requirements, he has failed to allege facts plausibly suggesting that (a) he is a qualified individual with a disability and (b) he is being excluded from participation in, or being denied the benefits of some service, program or activity, by reason of his disability (and the defects in his ADA claim are so substantive that granting Plaintiff leave to amend would be futile); and (3) in the alternative, Plaintiff's Complaint should be dismissed based on a lack of standing and mootness, given that his ADA claim seeks not specific relief related to an identifiable harm. (Dkt. No. 34, at Parts II.B. through II.E.)

D. Plaintiff's Objection to the Report-Recommendation

On October 15, 2012, Plaintiff filed an Objection to the Report-Recommendation. (Dkt. No. 40.) Generally, even when construed with the utmost of liberality, Plaintiff's Objection either addresses matters wholly unrelated to the Report-Recommendation (e.g., events occurring before his incarceration at Albany County Correctional Facility, or at locations other than that Facility), or reiterates the same arguments that he presented in his opposition to Defendant's motion. (Compare Dkt. No. 40 with Dkt. No. 30.) Plaintiff's Objection does not specifically challenge any portion of Magistrate Judge Hummel's Report-Recommendation. (Compare Dkt. No. 40 with Dkt. No. 34.) The closest he comes to doing so is when (1) he argues that "the Court took side [sic] the defendant Albany County C[orrectional Facility]" because of "a conflict of interest," and (2) he argues that the requirement that an inmate suffer a physical injury before suing ...


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.