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.

Artis v. Wood

United States District Court, N.D. New York

March 8, 2017

CLARENCE L. ARTIS, JR., also known as Clarence Lee Artis, Jr., also known as Abdul Qadir, Plaintiff,
v.
G. WOOD, C.O., Clinton Correctional Facility, J. LADIEU, O.R.C., Clinton Correctional Facility, and BULLIS, C.H.O., Clinton Correctional Facility, Defendants.

          CLARENCE L. ARTIS, JR. 10-B-0810 Plaintiff, pro se

          DECISION AND ORDER

          DAVID N. HURD United States District Judge.

         I. INTRODUCTION

         Plaintiff Clarence L. Artis, Jr. ("Artis" or "plaintiff") commenced this action by filing a pro se civil rights complaint together with an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. No. 1 ("Compl."); Dkt. No. 5 ("IFP Application").

         By Decision and Order filed January 5, 2017, Artis's IFP Application was granted. Dkt. No. 7 (the "January 2017 Order"). However, following review of the complaint in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), the January 2017 Order determined the complaint was subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Id. In light of his pro se status, plaintiff was afforded an opportunity to submit an amended complaint. Id.

         Presently pending is Artis's amended complaint. Dkt. No. 8 ("Am. Compl.").

         II. DISCUSSION

         A. Summary of the Amended Complaint

         Artis's amended complaint asserts claims arising out of his confinement at Clinton Correctional Facility ("Clinton C.F."). See generally Am. Compl. The following facts are set forth as alleged by plaintiff in his amended complaint.

         Defendant Wood issued Artis a false misbehavior report charging plaintiff with stalking, because plaintiff had gone to defendant Ladieu's office. Am. Compl. at 1, 3. In support of defendant Wood's misbehavior report, defendant Ladieu lied when she claimed that she did not know why plaintiff came to her office. Id. at 1-2. Defendant Wood issued the misbehavior report "in retaliation" because plaintiff had returned to B-block without a pass and without defendant Wood realizing that plaintiff had returned, "which made [defendant Wood] seem incompetent." Id. at 1.

         Defendant Bullis, who conducted Artis's disciplinary hearing arising from defendant Wood's misbehavior report, was not fair and impartial, did not rely on the evidence presented at the hearing when he found plaintiff guilty, and knew that defendant Wood was lying about the stalking charge. Am. Compl. at 2. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief. Id. at 3. For a more complete statement of plaintiff's claims, refer to the amended complaint.

         Construed liberally, Artis alleges that (1) defendants Wood and Ladieu issued him a false misbehavior report; (2) defendant Wood retaliated against him; and (3) defendant Bullis denied plaintiff due process at his disciplinary hearing in violation of plaintiff's constitutional rights.

         B. Analysis

         The legal standard governing the dismissal of a pleading for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) was discussed at length in the January 2017 Order and it will not be restated in this Decision and Order. See January 2017 Order at 2-4.

         Artis seeks relief pursuant to Section 1983, which establishes a cause of action for "'the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws' of the United States." German v. Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp., 885 F.Supp. 537, 573 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) (quoting Wilder v. Virginia Hosp. Ass'n, 496 U.S. 498, 508 (1990) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 1983)) (footnote omitted).

         "Section 1983 itself creates no substantive rights, [but] . . . only a procedure for] redress for the deprivation of rights established elsewhere." Sykes v. James, 13 F.3d 515, 519 (2d Cir. 1993) (citation omitted). To state a viable claim under Section 1983, a plaintiff must allege that the defendant, while acting under color of state law, deprived him of a right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution or by the laws of the United States. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983; West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48-49 (1988).

         1. False Misbehavior Report Claims

         Artis alleges that defendant Wood issued him false misbehavior report, and that defendant Ladieu lied in support of the ...


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.