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.

Jackson v. Bradt

United States District Court, W.D. New York

May 29, 2014

MARK BRADT, Superintendent; W. MURRAY. Lieutenant; C. MONIN, Correction Officer; WAGNER, Correction Officer; and ALBERT PRACK, Special Housing Unit Director, Defendants.


JOHN T. CURTIN, District Judge.

Plaintiff, Joseph Jackson, an inmate at the Southport Correctional Facility commenced this pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging various violations of his constitutional rights that occurred when he was an inmate at the Attica Correctional Facility ("Attica CF"). Upon initial review of the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A, the Court (Hon. Frank P. Geraci, Jr.): (1) dismissed certain claims with prejudice, (2) dismissed certain claims without prejudice with leave to amend such claims, and (3) directed certain claims to proceed to service pending the filing of an amended complaint, if any. (Docket No. 7, Decision and Order, filed August 26, 2013 ("Decision and Order"). The following claims were dismissed but with leave to amend: (1) the retaliation claims against D. O'Connell only relating to the November 5, 2011 visit and the November 6, 2011 Misbehavior Report arising from said visit ( id., pp. 7-10, supra ); and (2) the due process claims against Superintendent Mark Bradt and Lieutenant Murray relating to the November 10, 2011 Disciplinary Hearing held in relation to the November 6, 2011 Misbehavior Report ( id., pp. 11-15, supra ). Only the retaliation and excessive force claims against defendants Wagner and Monin arising from a March 6, 2012 cell search were allowed to proceed to service without amendment. ( Id., pp. 19-20, 25; Docket No. 1, Complaint, ¶¶ 34; pp. 18-20). Service however was stayed pending the filing of an amended complaint.[1] Plaintiff has filed an amended complaint, which is now subject to screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A.

Plaintiff has also filed a motion for the appointment of counsel which is denied at this time without prejudice as premature. A more fully developed record will be necessary before the Court can determine whether plaintiff's chances of success warrant the appointment of counsel. Therefore, plaintiff's motion is denied without prejudice to its renewal at such time as the existence of a potentially meritorious claim may be demonstrated. See Hendricks v. Coughlin, 114 F.3d 390, 392 (2d Cir. 1997) (when determining whether to appoint counsel, the Court must first look to the "likelihood of merit" of the underlying dispute).



In evaluating the amended complaint, the Court must accept as true all of the factual allegations and must draw all inferences in plaintiff's favor. See Larkin v. Savage, 318 F.3d 138, 139 (2d Cir. 2003) (per curiam); King v. Simpson, 189 F.3d 284, 287 (2d Cir. 1999). While "a court is obliged to construe [ pro se ] pleadings liberally, particularly when they allege civil rights violations, " McEachin v. McGuinnis, 357 F.3d 197, 200 (2d Cir. 2004), even pleadings submitted pro se must meet the notice requirements of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Wynder v. McMahon, 360 F.3d 73 (2d Cir. 2004). "Specific facts are not necessary, " and the plaintiff "need only give the defendant fair notice of what the... claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.'" Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).


1. First Claim

Plaintiff's amended complaint is brought against Bradt, Superintendent; Murray, Lieutenant/Hearing Officer; O'Connell, Sergeant; Monin, C.O.; Wagner, C.O.; and Prack, Special Housing Unit Director. It raises two separate claims. The First Claim ("Claim I) again alleges that on October 1, 2010, Conway, Attica C.F.'s former Superintendent had suspended the visitation privileges of Brenda Crawley for one year and that on October 26, 2011, Bradt sanctioned both plaintiff and Crawley by limiting them to non-contact visits for six months. (Docket No. 8, ¶ 33-35.)[2] On October 29, 2011, Crawley visited plaintiff and, when registering for the visit, she informed the desk officer that her name had changed to Adams. After registering she was allowed to visit plaintiff. (Amended Complaint, ¶ 37.) On November 5, 2011, Adams again visited plaintiff but during the course of the visit defendant O'Connell interrupted and asked Adams if she had changed her name. Adams explained that she had changed her name after her divorce and that she had informed the desk officer of the name change. After O'Connell confirmed that Adams had changed her name, he allowed the visit to continue. ( Id., ¶ 38.)

On November 6, 2011, plaintiff was placed on keeplock and issued a Misbehavior Report by O'Connell for failing to inform officers that he was permitted only non-contact visits with Crawley (Adams). Plaintiff immediately filed a grievance against O'Connell based on the issuance of the Misbehavior Report and his "altogether harassment." ( Id., ¶ 39-40, Exh. A-2, p.4.) Plaintiff alleges that the Tier III Misbehavior Report was issued by O'Connell based on "harassment, discriminatory and[/] or retaliation." He claims that O'Connell had an alleged verbal altercation with Adams at some time wherein he had advised her that she could not enter the facility, which plaintiff's claims was contrary to Bradt's authorization to allow Adams to re-enter the facility. This, plaintiff claims, was all part of O'Connell's harassment and retaliation against him. ( Id., ¶¶ 43-44, 48.)

The Tier III Hearing before Murray was held on November 10, 2011, and plaintiff alleges that Murray was biased and denied plaintiff the opportunity to adequately question the witnesses by interjecting and rephrasing plaintiff's questions to the witnesses in a leading manner. ( Id., ¶¶ 46-47, 49.) Murray found plaintiff guilty and sentenced him to two months keeplock, and six months loss of privileges, including visits with Adams. Plaintiff claims "he was sent to Special Housing Unit ["SHU]."

Plaintiff alleges that his claims arise under the First and Fourteenth Amendments and the Court construes them, as it did when the claims were raised in the complaint initially, as claims of retaliation against O'Connell (First Amendment) and a violation of due process against Murray and Prack, who affirmed Murray's disposition (Fourteenth Amendment).

The Decision and Order, which dismissed the retaliation claims against O'Connell without prejudice, noted that "a complaint which alleges retaliation in wholly conclusory terms may be safely dismissed on the pleadings alone [because] [i]n such a case, the prisoner has no factual basis for the claim. Flaherty v. Coughlin, 713 F.2d 10, 13 (2d Cir. 1983). Plaintiff's claims still lack any factual support that O'Connell issued the Misbehavior Report on November 6, 2011 in retaliation for some protected conduct engaged in by plaintiff. Plaintiff's allegations that "O'Connell violated policy and due process when he wrote misbehavior report to harass and retaliate against plaintiff and[/]or Ms. Adams after, alleged, verbal dispute with Ms. Adams to deprive plaintiff of his liberty and his property, and due to their being no DOCCS[3] Rule to match the [allegations set forth in] the Misbehavior Report..." are simply insufficient to support a claim of retaliation against O'Connell. Accordingly, the Court finds that plaintiff's allegations of retaliation with respect to the issuance of the November 6, 2011 Misbehavior Report must be dismissed with prejudice because they fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

With respect to the due process claim against Murray, the claim pled in the complaint was dismissed because plaintiff failed to allege whether he was sentenced to some form of disciplinary confinement and what the circumstances of any such confinement was, and because plaintiff failed to allege sufficiently that Murray was biased and denied him due process at the Hearing. (Decision and Order, pp. 13-14.) The amended complaint alleges that plaintiff was sentenced to two months keeplock, which apparently was served in Attica C.F.'s SHU, and a six month loss of privileges, including visitation with Adams. It also ...

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.