Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.

Mayo v. Conway

United States District Court, Second Circuit

August 16, 2013

WILSON MAYO, Plaintiff,


WILLIAM M. SKRETNY, Chief District Judge.


In this action, pro se Plaintiff Wilson Mayo alleges under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 that Defendants violated his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by assaulting him, falsely charging him with violating inmate rules, and denying him due process during his disciplinary hearing. Presently before this Court is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's first and fourth causes of action.[1] For the following reasons, Defendants' motion is granted in part and denied in part.


A. Procedural History

Plaintiff commenced this action on October 18, 2011, by filing a Complaint in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York. Because Plaintiff was granted in forma pauperis status, this Court screened his Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § § 1915(c)(2)(B) and 1915A(a). As a result of this screening process, this Court dismissed the complaint as against Brian Fischer, Commissioner, with leave for Plaintiff to amend to allege Fischer's personal involvement in the alleged constitutional violations. (See Docket No. 4). Plaintiff, however, did not replead any claims against Commissioner Fischer in his amended complaint. (Docket No. 5). This Court therefore dismissed with prejudice all claims against Fischer. (Docket No. 6).

B. Facts

The following facts, drawn from the Amended Complaint, are assumed true for purposes of the instant motion. At all times relevant, Plaintiff was an inmate in the custody of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision incarcerated at the Attica Correctional Facility. (Amended Complaint, Docket No. 5, p. 8, ¶ 1).[2] Plaintiff is now incarcerated at the Elmira Correctional Facility. (Am. Compl., p. 1).

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants assaulted him, filed a false misbehavior report against him, and testified falsely during his disciplinary hearing. At all times relevant, Defendant Conway was the Superintendent of Attica; Defendant Lavis was a lieutenant at Attica; and Defendants Collier and Kelly were correctional officers at Attica.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Kelly assaulted him on February 12, 2009, when Plaintiff was leaving the Attica visitation room after Bible Study. (Am. Compl., p. 8, ¶ ¶ 1-13). According to Plaintiff, he rang the buzzer six or seven times and waited more than 15 minutes before Defendant Kelly opened the door to let him out of the visitation room. (Am. Compl., p. 8, ¶ 3). At that time, Defendant Kelly expressed annoyance that Plaintiff rang the buzzer so many times. (Am. Compl, p. 8, ¶ 4). He then took Plaintiff's ID card and strip-searched him. (Am. Compl., p. 9, ¶ 11, p. 37).

After the strip-search, Defendant Kelly told Plaintiff that he was confiscating his glasses and belt. (Am. Compl., p. 9, ¶ 11, p. 37). When Plaintiff protested and asked to speak to a sergeant, Defendant Kelly told him to "shut [his] black mouth, " pushed him onto a bench, punched him in the face, and threw him on the floor. (Am. Compl., p. 8, , ¶¶ 8, 11, 13.) Three or four officers then arrived at the scene. (Am. Compl., p. 9, ¶ 13).

After this altercation, Plaintiff was taken to the prison medical unit, where he was drug tested and his injuries were examined and photographed. (Am. Compl., p. 9, ¶ 14). Plaintiff remained under observation awaiting the results of the drug tests in the Special Watch Unit for three days. After his drug tests returned negative, he was transferred to solitary confinement in the Special Housing Unit, on February 15, 2000. (Am. Compl., p. 9, ¶¶ 14-15).

On February 18, 2009, Plaintiff was served with a Misbehavior Report, written by Defendant Kelly, which charged Plaintiff with violating rule 100.11, Assault on Staff, and rule 104.11, Violent Conduct. (Am. Compl., p. 40).

On February 20, 2009, Defendant Collier was assigned to be Plaintiff's Employee Assistant for the purpose of assisting Plaintiff in his upcoming disciplinary hearing. (Am. Compl., p. 10, ¶ 17). Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Collier gave him false information regarding the day of the incident with Defendant Kelly, which undermined Plaintiff's credibility during the disciplinary hearing. Specifically, Plaintiff asked Defendant Collier to find out what happened to his glasses and belt, who searched Plaintiff before he entered the visitation room (to corroborate that he was wearing glasses and a belt when he entered the room), and to get the names of the officers working at the visitation room desk so they could be called as witnesses. (Am. Compl., p. 10, ¶ 10). Defendant Collier allegedly told Plaintiff that Defendant Kelly was the officer who searched him at the entrance to the visitation room and Kelly later put Plaintiff's glasses and ...

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.