United States District Court, N.D. New York
PETER YOUNG, 08-R-0331, Plaintiff pro se, Upstate Correctional Facility, Malone, NY.
HEATHER R. RUBENSTEIN, ESQ., HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, Attorney General for the State of New York, Syracuse, NY, Counsel for Defendants.
THÉRÈSE WILEY DANCKS, Magistrate Judge.
This pro se prisoner civil rights action, commenced pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, has been referred to me for Report and Recommendation by the Honorable Mae A. D'Agostino, United States District Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 72.3(c). Currently pending before the Court is Defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to meet the pleading requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 10(b). (Dkt. No. 62.) For the reasons that follow, I recommend that Defendants' motion be denied.
Plaintiff filed the original complaint in this action on September 13, 2012. (Dkt. No. 1.) Upon initial review, the Court dismissed the original complaint with leave to amend. (Dkt. No. 26.)
Plaintiff filed the amended complaint on March 27, 2013. (Dkt. No. 30.) The amended complaint is thirty-four pages long and lists eleven claims arising from Plaintiff's confinement at Auburn Correctional Facility ("Auburn C.F."). (Dkt. No. 30.) Although the paragraphs are not numbered, Plaintiff numbers each Defendant and his multiple claims against that Defendant. (Dkt. No. 30 at 8-33.) Plaintiff's handwriting is legible and his sentences are discernable. Id. Plaintiff does not provide specific dates in the complaint, but he describes particular incidents as happening over long periods of time. Id.
Upon initial review, the Court summarized and analyzed the amended complaint, listing the claims asserted against each Defendant applying the proper legal standards to those claims. (Dkt. No. 44.) As the Court stated in that Order, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Fisher retaliated against him for filing a previous federal civil rights lawsuit naming Fischer as a defendant, for filing grievances, and for his religious beliefs. (Dkt. No. 30 at 7.) Plaintiff claims that Defendant Fischer retaliated against him by, among other things, directing his agents to use excessive force and to employ chemical agents against him without justification, by subjecting him to inadequate conditions of confinement, by giving his staff permission to tamper with Plaintiff's legal mail, and by refusing to mail out Plaintiff's civil rights claims. Id. at 8.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Graham, superintendent at Auburn C.F., retaliated against him for filing a previous federal civil rights lawsuit naming Graham as a defendant, for filing grievances, and for his religious beliefs. See Dkt. No. 30 at 13. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Graham retaliated against him by, among other things, ordering Defendant Lieutenant Vasile to take Plaintiff to the facility infirmary for medical treatment against his religious beliefs, by directing corrections officers to use excessive force against him and to employ chemical agents without justification, and by tampering with his mail. See id. at 9-10. Plaintiff also claims that Defendant Graham removed all of Plaintiff's legal documents from his cell and destroyed them without due process. Id. at 10. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Graham interfered with his legal mail by "not mailing legal documents and other correspondence" to attorneys and to the court and by "reading attorney privileged mail." Id. at 11. Plaintiff also alleges that, on one occasion, Defendant Graham kept legal transcripts mailed to Plaintiff in the facility's package room for over three months after receiving them and that, as a result, a case Plaintiff had pending in the Eastern District of New York was dismissed by the court for failure to file a memorandum of law. Id. at 12. Plaintiff also claims that Defendant Graham refused to provide him with mailing supplies or access to the facility's law library. Id. at 13.
Plaintiff claims that Defendant Graham ordered Defendant Vasile to take Plaintiff to the infirmary for medical treatment "against [his] religious belief." Id. at 9. Apart from this reference, Plaintiff fails to provide any information about-or even to identify by name-his religion.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Brower, the officer in charge of the special housing unit at Auburn C.F., retaliated against him for filing a previous federal civil rights lawsuit naming Brower as a defendant, for filing grievances, and for his religious beliefs. See Dkt. No. 30 at 14-15. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Brower retaliated against him by, among other things, having the water turned off in his cell for thirty days. Id. at 15.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Chandler interfered with his legal mail and tampered with his food in order "to get [Plaintiff]... to shave [his] beard against [his] religious belief." See Dkt. No. 30 at 16-17. Plaintiff claims that Defendant Chandler interfered with his legal mail by refusing to send Plaintiff's outgoing mail and by refusing to give Plaintiff mail sent to him. See id. at 17-18. As a result of Defendant Chandler's refusal to mail his legal documents, Plaintiff alleges that he "lost [an] appeal and lawsuit." Id. at 18. Plaintiff also claims that Defendant Chandler tampered with his food by allowing food service staff to place dirty gloves on his food tray and to provide him with inadequate food at meal times and, as a result, Plaintiff claims that he "lost weight and had no energy to do anything." Id.
Plaintiff alleges that former Defendant Schug retaliated against him for filing federal civil rights lawsuits, for filing grievances, and for his religious beliefs. Dkt. No. 30 at 19. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Schug retaliated by, among other things, interfering with his legal mail and tampering with his food. Id. at 20. Plaintiff asserts that Defendant Schug returned an envelope containing legal mail to the sender without Plaintiff's authorization, falsely indicating on the envelope that Plaintiff had refused to accept it. Id. at 19. Plaintiff alleges that on December 29, 2012, Defendant Schug tampered with his dinner by providing inadequate portions of food and by using dirty gloves to serve him. Id. at 20. As a result, Plaintiff contends that Defendant Schug put him "in danger of getting any kind of health risk [by] keeping [him] undernourished and frail." Id.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Putnam interfered with his legal mail by refusing to provide Plaintiff with his mail on ...