United States District Court, S.D. New York
OPINION & ORDER
WILLIAM H. PAULEY, U.S.D.J.
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”). 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.
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.
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.
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
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.)
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.)
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
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.)
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.
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) ...