United States District Court, S.D. New York
OPINION AND ORDER
Vincent L. Briccetti United States District Judge.
Akintunde Akinleye, proceeding pro se and in
forma pauperis, brings this action under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983, alleging defendants violated his constitutional
rights while he was incarcerated at Westchester County Jail.
pending before the Court is defendants' motion for
summary judgment. (Doc. #48).
following reasons, the motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED
Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §
have submitted briefs, a statement of facts
(“SOF”), and affidavits with supporting exhibits,
including video footage, and plaintiff has submitted an
opposition, which together reflect the following background.
of an incident on January 2, 2014, plaintiff was held in
“keep lock” for some period of time at the
Westchester County Jail. By January 20, 2014, plaintiff was
no longer in “keep lock.”
January 20, 2014, Officer Marcuceilli released other inmates
from their cells, but did not release plaintiff. Plaintiff
banged on the door of his cell and demanded to be let out.
When Officer Marcuceilli eventually released plaintiff from
his cell, the two men had an altercation.
testified Officer Marcuceilli became “irate” and
“pushed” plaintiff. (Hogan Felix Decl. Ex. A at
contend plaintiff approached Officer Marcuceilli “in an
aggressive manner with fists clenched and using profanity,
” that plaintiff “came within inches” of
Officer Marcuceilli, and that plaintiff “was given a
direct order to step back.” (SOF ¶ 4). According
to defendants, when Officer Marcuceilli “placed his
left hand on the center of plaintiff's chest to push him
away, ” plaintiff responded by “rais[ing] both of
his fists in front of him as if he was going to fight.”
Marcuceilli and another officer then brought plaintiff to the
ground and placed him in handcuffs.
Summary Judgment Legal Standard
Court must grant a motion for summary judgment if the
pleadings, discovery materials before the Court, and any
affidavits show there is no genuine issue as to any material
fact and it is clear the moving party is entitled to judgment
as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v.
Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986).
is material when it “might affect the outcome of the
suit under the governing law. . . . Factual disputes that are
irrelevant or unnecessary” are not material and thus
cannot preclude summary ...