United States District Court, W.D. New York
DECISION AND ORDER
ELIZABETH A. WOLFORD District Judge.
Fabrizio Terranova ("Plaintiff) filed this action on
June 30, 2016. (Dkt. 1). Plaintiff filed an amended complaint
on November 28, 2016, alleging claims arising out of an
alleged beating by corrections officers at Wende Correctional
Facility. (Dkt. 7). Plaintiff is represented by counsel.
Presently before the Court is defendant John Lempke's
("Defendant") motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (Dkt. 8). For the reasons
stated below, Defendant's motion is granted.
facts alleged in the amended complaint are as follows: after
requesting urgent medical attention, Plaintiff, an inmate at
Wende Correctional Facility, was violently beaten in an
unprovoked attack by unidentified corrections officers. (Dkt.
7 at ¶¶ 12-16). At least one unidentified
supervisory officer observed the beating but failed to
intervene. (Id. at ¶ 17). As a result of the
officers' conduct, Plaintiff "sustained multiple
injuries, including but not limited to[:] lacerations,
traumatic brain injury, fractured ribs, multiple bruises and
contusions, permanent neurological injuries, mental anguish,
emotional distress, and post traumatic stress disorder."
(Id. at ¶ 19). Plaintiff was later charged with
violating prison rules and inciting violence. (Id.
at ¶ 20).
brings causes of action for the denial of medical care,
excessive use of force, and failure to intervene. (See
Id. at ¶¶ 21-45). The amended complaint
alleges that the Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1331. (Id. at ¶8). Although the
amended complaint fails to specify a single federal law or
constitutional provision which was violated, the Court
interprets Plaintiffs claims as arising under 42 U.S.C.
Standard of Review
motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6) tests the legal sufficiency of the party's claim
for relief." Zucco v. Auto Zone, Inc., 800
F.Supp.2d 473, 475 (W.D.N.Y. 2011). In considering a motion
to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), a court generally may
consider only "facts stated in the complaint or
documents attached to the complaint as exhibits or
incorporated by reference." Nechis v. Oxford Health
Plans, Inc., 421 F.3d 96, 100 (2d Cir. 2005). A court
should consider the motion "accepting all factual
allegations in the complaint and drawing all reasonable
inferences in the plaintiffs favor." Ruotolo v. City
of N.Y., 514 F.3d 184, 188 (2d Cir. 2008) (quoting
ATSI Commc'ns, Inc. v. Shaar Fund, Ltd., 493
F.3d 87, 98 (2d Cir. 2007)). To withstand dismissal, a
plaintiff must set forth "enough facts to state a claim
to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl.
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). However,
"threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of
action, supported by mere conclusory statements, " are
not entitled to an assumption of truth. Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss
does not need detailed factual allegations, a plaintiffs
obligation to provide the 'grounds' of his
'entitlement to relief requires more than labels and
conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a
cause of action will not do." Twombly, 550 U.S.
at 555 (citations omitted). Thus, "at a bare minimum,
the operative standard requires the plaintiff to provide the
grounds upon which his claim rests through factual
allegations sufficient to raise a right to relief above the
speculative level." Goldstein v. Pataki, 516
F.3d 50, 56-57 (2d Cir. 2008) (citations omitted).
The Court Will Not Consider Facts Outside of the Amended
addressing the merits of Defendant's motion, the Court
must address facts submitted by Plaintiff in opposing the
motion which do not appear in the amended complaint. In his
motion papers, Plaintiff alleges Defendant permitted
unconstitutional customs and practices, failed to take
measures to prevent brutality by corrections officers, and
failed to investigate complaints of brutality. (Dkt. 11 at
deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the Court is generally
limited to reviewing "the allegations contained within
the four corners of [the plaintiffs] complaint."
Pani v. Empire Blue Cross Blue Shield, 152 F.3d 67,
71 (2d Cir. 1998); see, e.g., Friedl v. City of
N.Y., 210 F.3d 79, 83-84 (2d Cir. 2000) (finding that a
district court errs if, in deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion,
it "relies on factual allegations contained in legal
briefs or memoranda"). However, where the additional
documents are integral to or relied upon by the complaint,
the court may consider them without converting the motion to
one for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 56. Roth v. Jennings, 489 F.3d 499, 509
(2d Cir. 2007); Cortec Indus., Inc. v. Sum Holding
L.P., 49 F.2d 42');">949 F.2d 42, 48 (2d Cir. 1991).
Plaintiff, wholly inappropriately, has submitted facts which
go beyond what is alleged in the amended complaint, and
includes information that is neither integral to nor relied
upon in the amended complaint. Consideration of these
additional allegations would be procedurally improper without
converting Defendant's motion to one for summary
judgment. No party is on notice of such a conversion, and no
discovery has yet occurred in this case. Therefore,