United States District Court, W.D. New York
DECISION AND ORDER
FRANK P. GERACI, JR. Chief Judge
Fixter (“Plaintiff”) brought this 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 action against New York State employees Amy Saeva
and Laura Welch (the “State Defendants”),
Livingston County, and Livingston County employees Lynne
Mignemi, Karen Weidman, Elizabeth Laney, and Debra Mack (the
“County Defendants”) (collectively
“Defendants”). ECF No. 1. Plaintiff's
allegations arise from a state court finding that she
violated the terms of her probation by consuming alcohol.
Id. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants fabricated
incriminating and destroyed exculpatory evidence, entered her
home without a warrant, consent, or probable cause, denied
her procedural due process, and unlawfully imprisoned her.
Id. at ¶¶ 49-68, 77-82. Plaintiff also
alleges that that Livingston County was negligent in hiring,
retaining, supervising, and controlling its employees and was
deliberately indifferent to her serious medical needs.
Id. at ¶¶ 72-76, 83-85.
have moved to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint. ECF Nos. 4,
8. First, Defendants argue that Heck v. Humphrey,
512 U.S. 477 (1994), bars Plaintiff's claims challenging
the constitutionality of her incarceration. ECF No. 4-2 at
6-12; ECF No. 10 at 6-9.
the County Defendants argue that Plaintiff's claims
against Livingston County must be dismissed because Plaintiff
failed to allege that a county policy or custom deprived her
of her rights. ECF No. 10 at 13-15. For the reasons stated
below, Defendants' Motions to Dismiss (ECF Nos. 4, 8) are
granted and Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed.
terms of Plaintiff's probation required her to
participate in Livingston County Drug Treatment Court. ECF
No. 1. At ¶ 19. Plaintiff's participation in
Treatment Court required her to submit to a urine screen,
which tested her urine for alcohol, on April 17, 2013.
Id. After Plaintiff submitted to that urine screen,
Defendant Saeva, a state employee and Livingston County
Treatment Court liaison, informed Plaintiff that her urine
tested positive for alcohol. Id. at ¶ 20.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Saeva destroyed her urine
sample and replaced it with a different sample. Id.
at ¶¶ 19, 25.
April 18, 2013, Plaintiff was required to attend a Treatment
Court hearing. Id. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant
Saeva and Defendant Mack falsely testified at the hearing.
Id. at ¶23. Plaintiff also alleges that
Defendant Welch, a Livingston County court reporter, altered
the transcript of the hearing. Id. ¶¶ 22,
the hearing on April 18, 2013, Plaintiff was incarcerated for
five days. Id. at ¶ 23. Upon her release,
Plaintiff was placed on electronic home monitoring.
Id. On two occasions, the home monitoring device
reported that Plaintiff had consumed alcohol. Id. at
¶¶ 34-35. Plaintiff alleges that these reports were
false-positives. Id. ¶¶ 34-35.
10, 2013, Plaintiff was informed that she was violating the
terms of her probation. Id. at ¶¶ 36. Two
days later, Plaintiff was Plaintiff was arrested.
Id. at ¶¶ 29-30.
pled guilty to a probation violation and was sentenced to 1-3
years in prison. She served approximately 18 months.
Id. at ¶ 45.
incarcerated, Plaintiff alleges that she suffered from
serious dental pain resulting from abscesses in her mouth.
Id. at ¶ 41. Plaintiff alleges that she
requested treatment, but her requests were denied.
Id. On September 3, 2013, Plaintiff was transferred
to a New York State Department of Corrections and Community
Services facility. Id. After she was transferred,
Plaintiff was prescribed antibiotics and her teeth were
succeed on a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6), the defendant must show that the
complaint contains insufficient facts to state a claim for
relief that is plausible on its face. Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-56 (2007). Plausibility
“is not akin to a probability requirement.”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)
(quotation marks omitted). Rather, plausibility requires
“more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has
acted unlawfully.” Id. “Where a
complaint pleads facts that are merely consistent with a
defendant's liability, it stops short of the line between
possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.”
Id. A pleading that consists of “labels and
conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the