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.

Brown v. Annucci

United States District Court, N.D. New York

March 16, 2017

CARL BROWN, Plaintiff,
v.
ANTHONY ANNUCCI, et. al., Defendants.

          CARL BROWN Plaintiff, pro se

          DECISION and ORDER

          THOMAS J. McAVOY Senior United States District Judge

         I. INTRODUCTION

         Plaintiff Carl Brown commenced this action by filing a pro se civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ("Section 1983"), together with an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. No. 1 ("Compl."), Dkt. No. 5 ("IFP Application"). By Decision and Order filed August 30, 2016 (the "August Order"), this Court granted plaintiff's IFP application, but found that plaintiff's complaint failed to allege sufficient facts to state a plausible claim against any of the defendants. See Dkt. No. 11, generally. Accordingly, plaintiff's complaint was dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). See Id. at 8-9. In light of his pro se status, plaintiff was afforded an opportunity to submit an amended complaint. See id.

         Plaintiff has submitted an amended complaint in response to the August Order. Dkt. No. 22 ("Am. Compl.").[1] For the reasons set forth below, this action is dismissed in its entirety pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) because plaintif f has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

         II. LEGAL STANDARD

         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 August Order and will not be restated here. See Dkt. No. 11 at 2-4. Taking into account plaintiff's pro se status, the Court construes the allegations in plaintiff's amended complaint with the utmost leniency. See, e.g., Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 521 (1972) (holding that a pro se litigant's complaint is to be held "to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers."). Despite this liberal reading, for the reasons discussed below, a review of plaintiff's amended complaint reveals that it does not cure the deficiencies identified in the original complaint, and fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under Section 1983.

         III. REVIEW OF AMENDED COMPLAINT [2]

         The facts set forth in the amended complaint are largely identical in content to the allegations set forth in the original complaint. Plaintiff alleges that defendant Ms. Stoddard ("Stoddard") sexually harassed him in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights and that defendants Superintendent Graham ("Graham"), Sgt. Murray ("Murray"), Lt. Fasce ("Fasce"), Inspector General D. Miller ("Miller") and Captain B. Chutley[3] ("Chutley") failed to properly investigate the incident. See Am. Compl., generally.

         The amended complaint does not contain any claim against Commissioner Anthony Annucci ("Annucci") and Annucci is not named in the list of defendants.[4] Plaintiff named "John Doe" as an additional defendant and alleges a new retaliation claim against Miller.[5]For a more complete statement of plaintiff's claims, reference is made to the amended complaint.

         IV. ANALYSIS

         A. Sexual Harassment

         In the August Order, the Court discussed the law as it pertains to plaintiff's Eighth Amendment sexual harassment claim. See Dkt. No. 11 at 7-8. The Court held:

Here, plaintiff complains of one instance of verbal sexual harassment by Stoddard. See Compl. at 5. Plaintiff does not contend that he was touched or physically harmed in any manner from this conduct. Consequently, plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim for verbal sexual harassment is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) for failure to state a claim. See Phelan v. Durniak, No. 9:10-CV-666 (FJS/RFT), 2014 WL 4759937, at *6 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 24, 2014) ...

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.