United States District Court, S.D. New York
ARTHUR R. MOLINA, Plaintiff,
CORRECTION OFFICER SARAIREH, SHIELD NO. 1580; and CO. SANTORA, SHIELD NO. 1598, Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
VINCENT L. BRICCETTI UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Arthur R. Molina, 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, by
failing to protect him from attack by another inmate.
pending is defendants' motion to dismiss the amended
complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). (Doc. #37).
reasons set forth below, the motion is GRANTED.
Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
purposes of ruling on a motion to dismiss, the Court accepts
all factual allegations of the amended complaint as true, and
draws all reasonable inferences in plaintiffs favor.
March 8, 2016, while plaintiff was an inmate at Westchester
County Jail, he was attacked by another inmate, "[M]r.
[T]ucker, " who had recently been moved from the Special
Housing Unit ("SHU") to the cell next to
plaintiffs. (Am. Compl. at 4).
particular, plaintiff alleges Mr. Tucker wanted to be moved
from the cell block in which he was housed to another
location. Plaintiff alleges unnamed corrections officers told
Mr. Tucker that "because he just came from the [SHU] and
was on key-lock[, ] only the warden c[ould] move him."
(Am. Compl. at 4). On March 8, as plaintiff entered the
"rec/yard" he heard Mr. Tucker "yelling up to
the third floor window talking to some inmates."
(Id.). As plaintiff began to "walk the yard,
" he heard another inmate on the third floor tell Mr.
Tucker to "attack someone in the yard" because this
would ensure Mr. Tucker would be moved to another cell block.
(Id.). Plaintiff alleges he looked for corrections
officers, but "the two officers were no where [sic] in
the rec/yard and only one correction officer was in the
hallway of the building." (Id.). According to
plaintiff, as he continued to walk in the recreation yard,
"[M]r. [T]ucker came up from behind [him] and beg[a]n to
attack" plaintiff. (Id.).
alleges he "took multiple blows to the head and face and
black[ed] out" with a concussion. (Am. Compl. at 4). He
alleges he "awo[ke] to find the attacker being held on
the wall by CO. [S]antora with no other C.O.s in
si[ght]." (Id. at 4-5).
commenced this action by filing a complaint on May 9, 2016,
alleging (i) corrections officers Saraireh and Santora failed
to protect him against inmate attack, (ii) Westchester County
was liable to him under Monell v. Dep't of Soc.
Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978), and (iii) liberally
construed, additional state law violations. (Doc. #1). By
Opinion and Order dated April 28, 2017, the Court dismissed
plaintiffs complaint, but granted him leave to amend the
claim that corrections officers Saraireh and Santora violated
his constitutional rights by failing to protect him against
the inmate attack. (Doc. #33). On May 30, 2017, plaintiff
filed his amended complaint, which is the subject of the
instant motion to dismiss. (Doc. #34).
Standard of Review
deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the Court evaluates the
sufficiency of the operative complaint under the
"two-pronged approach" articulated by the Supreme
Court in Ashcroftv. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
679 (2009). First, plaintiffs legal conclusions and
"[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of
action, supported by mere conclusory statements, " are
not entitled to the assumption of truth and are thus not
sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss. Id. at
678; Hayden v. Paterson, 594 F.3d 150, 161 (2d Cir.
2010). Second, "[w]hen there are well-pleaded factual
allegations, a court should ...