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.

Perkins v. City of New York

United States District Court, S.D. New York

March 15, 2017

GREGORY PERKINS, Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF NEW YORK, et al, Defendants.

          OPINION & ORDER

          WILLIAM H. PAULEY, U.S.D.J.

         Plaintiff pro se Gregory Perkins brings this federal civil rights action against Defendants the City of New York, New York City Department of Corrections Commissioner Joseph Ponte, Assistant Chief James Perrino, Warden Monica Windley, Captain Boyd, Captain Sledge, Captain Collazo, Correctional Officer Crichlow, and Grievance Coordinator Rosamund Padmore (“Defendants”).[1] Defendants move to dismiss the Amended Complaint (“Complaint”) pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). For the reasons that follow, Defendants' motion is granted.

         BACKGROUND

         The allegations in the Complaint are presumed to be true for purposes of this motion. Following a pre-motion conference, this Court granted Perkins extensions of time to amend his complaint. But Perkins did nothing.

         On May 11, 2016, this Court provided one final opportunity to amend and warned Perkins that if he failed to do so, his first amended complaint would be treated as the operative complaint. Once again, Perkins did nothing.

         In June 2016, Defendants moved to dismiss the operative complaint. Perkins never opposed the Defendants' motion and has not communicated with this Court or the Defendants. By letter dated August 24, 2016, Defendants asked this Court to treat their motion as fully briefed. (ECF No. 80.) At that time, Defendants also pointed out the obvious-namely, that Perkins has been unresponsive and ignored direct Orders of this Court.

         The Complaint is a laundry list of Perkins's grievances, all of which are aggregated into a single claim. First, Perkins alleges that he was subject to strip searches and body scans while incarcerated at the Otis Bantum Correction Center (“OBCC”) and the Brooklyn Detention Center (“BDC”). (Compl. at 1.) As a result, Perkins claims he was “extremely humiliat[ed]” and “felt very uneasy.” (Compl. at 1-2.) He also claims he was “forced to go through” a RadPro SecurPass scanner without protective wear, subjecting him to “high levels of radiation.” (Compl. at 1-2.)

         In another vein, Perkins claims that Correctional Officer Pullucci searched Perkins's living area and destroyed some of his legal documents “with malice and intent.” (Compl. at 5.) He claims that Captain Cooper supervised Pullucci and that later Captain Sledge failed to provide him with Pullucci's badge number. (Compl. at 5.) He also claims that Pullucci may have been in “cahoots” with Captain Boyd-whom he named in another complaint in the Eastern District of New York. (Compl. Ex. 1, at 37.)

         In a separate incident, Perkins claims that he was singled out by Correctional Officer Crichlow for a strip search while on his way to the law library. (Compl. at 7.) Perkins maintains that Correctional Officers retaliated against him for filing lawsuits.

         Finally, Perkins claims that Captain Collazo conspired to have him assaulted by an inmate. (Compl. at 9.) Perkins alleges that Collazo escorted the inmate to Perkins's dorm where the inmate attacked him in the presence of Correctional Officer Youngblood, who failed to record the incident. (Compl. at 9.)

         LEGAL STANDARD

         “[T]he sufficiency of a complaint is a matter of law that the court is capable of determining based on its own reading of the pleading and knowledge of the law.” Goldberg v. Danaher, 599 F.3d 181, 184 (2d Cir. 2010) (quoting McCall v. Pataki, 232 F.3d 321, 322-23 (2d Cir. 2000).

         To withstand dismissal, a pleading “must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). Courts must accept a plaintiff's allegations as true and draw all reasonable inferences in his favor. Gonzalez v. Hasty, 802 F.3d 212, 219 (2d Cir. 2015). Where a plaintiff is proceeding pro se, courts construe “the complaint to raise the strongest claims that it suggests.” Williams v. Correction Officer Priatno, 829 F.3d 118, 122 (2d Cir. 2016) ...


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.