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.

Reeder v. Hogan

United States District Court, Second Circuit

May 17, 2013

RASZELL REEDER, Plaintiff,
v.
M. HOGAN, et al, Defendants.

RASZELL REEDER, Plaintiff, pro se.

JUSTIN C. LEVIN, Assistant Attorney General.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

ANDREW T. BAXTER, Magistrate Judge.

I. Background

Plaintiff commenced this action pro se, seeking damages for injuries resulting from various incidents occurring between 2007 and 2008. (Dkt. No. 1). Liberally construed, plaintiff's original complaint set forth several First and Eighth Amendment claims, including excessive force, denial of medical care, failure to receive proper Ramadan meals, and challenges to his conditions of confinement. Id.

On November 16, 2009, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). (Dkt. No. 69). While defendants' motion to dismiss was pending, plaintiff filed an amended complaint ("First Amended Complaint") on January 4, 2010. (Dkt. No. 84). Although the motion to dismiss was filed prior to the First Amended Complaint, the only amendment to the original complaint was the addition of two named defendants in place of two of the John/Jane Doe defendants. The new defendants requested that they be allowed to join the pending motion to dismiss. (Dkt. Nos. 72, 87). The court granted these requests. (Dkt. Nos. 77, 88).

On September 29, 2010, then-Chief District Judge Mordue granted defendants' motion in part and denied it in part. (Dkt. No. 122). On October 8, 2010, this action was referred to Magistrate Judge Victor E. Bianchini for settlement proceedings, pursuant to the Pro Se Prisoner Settlement Program, and the case was stayed in all other respects until the proceedings were completed. (Dkt. No. 124).

On November 1, 2010, plaintiff filed a motion to amend, together with a Second Amended Complaint. (Dkt. No. 129). In light of the stay, the Court did not address the motion. On January 31, 2011, the stay was lifted. (Dkt. No. 133). Before this Court could address plaintiff's November 1, 2010 motion, plaintiff filed another motion to amend on May 4, 2011, together with a Third Amended Complaint. (Dkt. No. 141). In an order dated June 22, 2011, this court denied plaintiff's motion to amend filed on May 4, 2011, but granted, in part, the November 1, 2010 motion. (Dkt. No. 145). The operative pleadings were then plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, filed January 4, 2010, without the claims that were dismissed as a result of Judge Mordue's September 29, 2010 Order, read together with plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint. Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on December 27, 2011. (Dkt. No. 150). Plaintiff filed a response on January 9, 2012. (Dkt. No. 154).

On September 19, 2012, Judge Mordue granted defendants' motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 150), and all claims against all defendants were dismissed except for plaintiff's claim based on excessive force against defendant Allan, which was denied without prejudice to defendant Allan filing another summary judgment motion (Dkt. No. 161). On October 19, 2012, defendant Allan filed his motion for summary judgment. (Dkt. No. 162). Plaintiff opposed the motion. (Dkt. No. 165).

II. Facts and Contentions

Plaintiff alleges that on August 25, 2008, defendants Uhler, Allen, Marcil, and other correction officers wanted plaintiff to come out of his cell, but he "disagreed with coming out, " because "they did not come with [a] camera." (First Am. Compl. ¶ 24, 41). A "distraction unit" was called, bringing a camera, so plaintiff "agreed to come out, " but defendants Uhler, Allen, Marcil and others still used mace "repeatedly." Id. Plaintiff was placed in full restraints and escorted to the SHU. (First Am. Compl. ¶ 24-25; Pl.'s Dep. 109-12 (Dkt. No. 162-3)).

For the reasons below, the court recommends granting defendant's motion and dismissing plaintiff's complaint in its entirety.

III. Summary Judgment

Summary judgment may be granted when the moving party carries its burden of showing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56; Thompson v. Gjivoje, 896 F.2d 716, 720 (2d Cir. 1990). "Only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under governing law will properly preclude summary judgment." Salahuddin v. Coughlin, 674 F.Supp. 1048, 1052 (S.D.N.Y. 1987) (citation omitted). A dispute about a genuine issue of material fact exists if the evidence is such that "a ...


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.