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.

Kidkarndee v. Koenigsmann

United States District Court, N.D. New York

March 25, 2014

SRISDI KIDKARNDEE, Plaintiff,
v.
CARL J. KOENIGSMANN, Chief Med. Dir., DOCCS; M.D. PANG KOOI, Facility Health Servs. Dir., Auburn Corr. Facility; and NANCY RYERSON, Nurse Practitioner, Auburn Corr. Facility, Defendants.

SRISDI KIDKARNDEE, Plaintiff, Pro Se Auburn Correctional Facility Auburn, New York.

HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN KEVIN B. HICKEY, ESQ. Attorney General for the State of New York Assistant Attorney General Counsel for Defendants The Capitol Albany, New YoCrk.

DECISION and ORDER

GLENN T. SUDDABY, District Judge.

Currently before the Court, in this pro se prisoner civil rights action filed by Srisdi Kidkarndee ("Plaintiff") against the three above-captioned New York State correctional employees ("Defendants"), are (1) Defendants' motion for summary judgment, (2) United States Magistrate Judge Christian F. Hummel's Report-Recommendation recommending that Defendants' motion be granted, and (3) Plaintiff's Objections to the Report-Recommendation. (Dkt. Nos. 32, 41, 44.) For the reasons set forth below, Magistrate Judge Hummel's Report-Recommendation is accepted, Defendants' motion is granted, and Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed.

I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND

A. Plaintiff's Complaint

Generally, construed with the utmost of special liberality, Plaintiff's Complaint asserts the following four claims against Defendants: (1) a claim that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff's serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment; (2) a claim that Defendants denied Plaintiff due process in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment; (3) a claim that Defendants infringed on Plaintiff's right of free speech and/or freedom of religion in violation of the First Amendment; and (4) a claim that Defendants denied Plaintiff access to counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment. ( See generally Dkt. No. 1.)

Because this Decision and Order is intended primarily for the review of the parties, the Court will not recite the factual allegations supporting these claims in Plaintiff's Complaint. Rather, the Court will merely note that, in its memorandum of law, Defendants have accurately summarized those factual allegations. (Dkt. No. 32, Attach. 3, at 3-5 [attaching pages "1" through "3" of Defs.' Memo. of Law].)

B. Parties' Briefing on Defendants' Motion

Generally, in their memorandum of law in chief, Defendants assert the following two arguments: (1) based on the current record, Plaintiff cannot adduce admissible record evidence in support of either the objective prong or the subjective prong of his claim of deliberate indifference to a serious medical need under the Eighth Amendment; and (2) his remaining claims fail to allege facts plausibly suggesting, and/or are unsupported by admissible record evidence establishing, a violation of the First, Sixth or Fourteenth Amendment, particularly due to the lack of injury, the lack of personal involvement, the lack of racial animus, and the fact that the claims were asserted not by Plaintiff but by the inmate who assisted Plaintiff in drafting his Complaint. ( See generally Dkt. No. 32, Attach. 3.)

Generally, in his opposition memorandum of law, Plaintiff asserts the following two arguments: (1) based on the current record, there is (at least) a genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether Plaintiff possessed a serious medical need during the time in question, and whether Defendants acted with deliberate indifference to that serious medical need; and (2) the factual allegations of Plaintiff's Complaint, and the record evidence on Defendants' motion, should be viewed even more strongly than usual in favor of Plaintiff, given that he is proceeding pro se, he has a limited grasp of the English language, he made numerous requests for the appointment of counsel, and much of his own deposition is non-responsive and thus incomplete. (Dkt. No. 39.)

Generally, in their reply letter-brief, Defendants assert the following three arguments: (1) despite the fact that both Defendants and the Court served Plaintiff with a notice of the consequences of failing to properly respond to Defendants' motion, Plaintiff failed to file a Response to Defendants' Statement of Material Facts (or even an affidavit), effectively admitting all of the properly supported factual assertions contained in that Statement; (2) even setting aside these admissions, no admissible record evidence exists from which a rational fact finder could conclude that (a) Plaintiff suffered a heart attack in 2011 (as opposed to some less-severe condition), (b) Defendants acted with a sufficiently culpable mental state with regard to Plaintiff's health condition; and (3) at the very least, Plaintiff has conceded that summary judgment should be granted in favor of Defendant Koenigsman. (Dkt. No. 40.)

C. Magistrate Judge Hummel's Report-Recommendation

Generally, in his Report-Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Hummel concluded that Plaintiff's Complaint should be dismissed in its entirety for each of the reasons stated by Defendants in their memoranda of law. ( See generally Dkt. No. 41.) In so doing, Magistrate Judge Hummel rejected the arguments asserted by Plaintiff in his opposition memorandum of law. ( Id. ) For example, in response to Plaintiff's ...


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.