United States District Court, N.D. New York
WALKER 94-A-5258 Plaintiff, pro se Upstate Correctional
Facility P.O. Box 2001
DECISION AND ORDER
T. SUDDABY Chief United States District Judge
plaintiff Tyrone Walker ("Plaintiff") commenced
this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ("Section
1983") asserting claims arising out of his confinement
in the custody of the New York State Department of
Corrections and Community Supervision ("DOCCS").
Dkt. No. 1 ("Compl."). The incidents that formed
the basis for the action allegedly occurred while Plaintiff
was confined at Upstate Correctional Facility ("Upstate
C.F."). See id., generally. By Decision and
Order filed on November 3, 2017 (the "November
Order"), this Court granted Plaintiff's IFP
application and reviewed the sufficiency of the Complaint in
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and 28 U.S.C. §
1915A. Dkt. No. 5. On the basis of that review, Court
dismissed the following, without prejudice: (1) Fourteenth
Amendment Due Process claims related to Plaintiff's
initial placement in Administrative Segregation and the Pilot
Incentive Program; (2) Fourteenth Amendment substantive Due
Process claims; (3) Eighth Amendment claims related to
Plaintiff's conditions of confinement; (4) Eighth
Amendment claims related to Plaintiff's serious medical
needs; and (5) Eighth Amendment claims related to
threats. See Id. at 27. The Court ordered
defendants Melissa A. Cook ("Cook"), Donald Uhler
("Uhler"), Joseph Bellnier ("Bellnier"),
Joanne Fitchette ("Fitchette"), and Paul P.
Woodruff ("Woodruff") to respond to Plaintiff's
Fourteenth Amendment Due Process claims related to his
continued confinement in Administrative
Segregation. See id. at 28.
before the Court is Plaintiff's Amended
Complaint. Dkt. No. 8 ("Am. Compl.").
SUMMARY OF AMENDED COMPLAINT
January 17, 2014, Plaintiff was placed in the Special Housing
Unit ("SHU") based upon an Administrative
Segregation Recommendation and remained in the unit pending a
hearing. Am. Compl. at 3. Plaintiff's hearing was
completed 2 ½ months after the recommendation was
August 2014, Plaintiff filed a grievance complaining that he
was being treated like an inmate on "SHU status."
Dkt. No. 8-1 at 4. On August 19, 2014, the Inmate Grievance
Resolution Committee ("IGRC") issued a response
denying the grievance reasoning that Plaintiff was receiving
privileges in accordance with DOCCS' Directive #4933,
section 304.1. Id. at 5.
April 12, 2016, Plaintiff sent a letter to the Administrative
Segregation Review Committee ("ASRC") claiming that
his periodic administrative reviews were untimely, based upon
false information, and essentially, "a farce." Am.
Compl. at 3; Dkt. No. 8-1 at 14-17. Plaintiff claimed that
Woodruff "made it clear" that he would not be
released from Administrative Segregation for two to three
years. Dkt. No. 8-1 at 14-17. Plaintiff objected to
Cook's role in the review process. Id.
2016, Plaintiff filed a grievance asking for permission to
return to the general population. Am. Compl. at 3; Dkt. No.
8-1 at 8. During interviews, Woodruff and Cook told Plaintiff
that he would not be released from the SHU. Dkt. No. 8-1 at
8. The IGRC denied Plaintiff's grievance and Plaintiff
appealed. Id. at 9. Sandra Danforth
("Danforth"), the Acting Superintendent at Upstate
C.F., issued a decision concurring with the
IGRC. Id. at 10.
4, 2016, Plaintiff sent a letter to Uhler and the ASRC
claiming that he did not receive his March 2016 review. Am.
Compl. at 3; Dkt. No. 8-1 at 18-23. Plaintiff complained that
the reviews were a "sham" and that Woodruff had no
intention of allowing Plaintiff to leave the SHU. Dkt. No.
8-1 at 18-23.
February 17, 2017, Plaintiff received an Administrative
Segregation Review dated August 17, 2016. Am. Compl. at 3;
Dkt. No. 8-1 at 24. The three member committee, including
Cook and Fitchette, reviewed Plaintiff's status and
determined that continued confinement was appropriate. Dkt.
No. 8-1 at 24.
April 20, 2017, Woodruff issued a memorandum to inmates in
Administrative Segregation advising that the Pilot Incentive
Program was discontinued. Am. Compl. at 4; Dkt. No. 8-1 at
29. The program allowed Plaintiff to watch one movie each
month. Am. Compl. at 4. On April 21, 2017, Plaintiff wrote to
Woodruff asking him to reinstate the program. Dkt. No. 8-1 at
22, 2017, Plaintiff wrote to Bellnier complaining that the
August 2016 review was the last review he received. Am.
Compl. at 5; Dkt. No. 8-1 at 74. Plaintiff objected to the
decision to discontinue the Pilot Program. Dkt. No. 8-1 at
August 4, 2017, Plaintiff received an Administrative
Segregation Review dated January 30, 2017. Am. Compl. at 4;
Dkt. No. 8-1 at 34-36. On February 9, 2017, a three member
committee, including Fitchette, found that continued
segregation was appropriate. Dkt. No. 8-1 at 34-36. On July
31, 2017, the recommendation was approved. Id. at
October 1 2017, Plaintiff received an Administrative
Segregation Review dated June 12, 2017. Am. Compl. at 6; Dkt.
No. 8-1 at 76. The review was completed on September 25,
2017. Id. The committee cited to Plaintiff's
"unpredictable behavior and violence" and concluded
that he posed a "threat to the security and safety of
himself, the facility and population" if he returned to
general population. Dkt. No. 8-1 at 77.
the Amended Complaint liberally, Plaintiff asserts the
following: (1) Fourteenth Amendment Due Process claims
related to Plaintiff's initial placement in
Administrative Segregation; (2) Fourteenth Amendment Due
Process claims related to Plaintiff's continued
confinement in Administrative Segregation; (3) Fourteenth
Amendment Equal Protection ...