United States District Court, N.D. New York
CLARENCE L. ARTIS, JR., also known as Clarence Lee Artis, Jr., also known as Abdul Qadir, Plaintiff,
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
N. HURD United States District Judge.
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
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.
pending is Artis's amended complaint. Dkt. No. 8
Summary of the Amended Complaint
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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))
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).
False Misbehavior Report Claims
alleges that defendant Wood issued him false misbehavior
report, and that defendant Ladieu lied in support of the