United States District Court, N.D. New York
FORD Plaintiff, pro se
W. STURGESS, ESQ
ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN KYLE W. STURGESS, ESQ. New York State
Attorney General Attorney for Defendant
DECISION AND ORDER
D' AGOSTINO U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.
before the Court is the second motion for preliminary
injunctive relief filed by pro se plaintiff Corey Ford
("Plaintiff"). Dkt. No. 50. For the reasons stated
below, Plaintiff's motion is denied.
2016, Plaintiff commenced this action seeking relief for the
alleged violation of his constitutional rights during his
confinement at Shawangunk Correctional Facility
("Shawangunk C.F.") and Great Meadow Correctional
Facility ("Great Meadow C.F."). Dkt. No. 1
("Compl."), generally. In a Decision and
Order filed on October 7, 2016 (the "October
Order"), the Court reviewed the sufficiency of the
Complaint in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and 28
U.S.C. § 1915A. See Dkt. No. 9. Based upon that
review, the Court directed as follows: (1) defendants
Shawangunk C.F. Sergeant R. Deacon ("Deacon"),
Shawangunk C.O. J. Phillips ("Phillips"), Great
Meadow C.O. Daniel McClenning ("McClenning"),
Deputy Superintendent of Security at Great Meadow C.F. R.
Eastman ("Eastman"), Great Meadow C.F.
Superintendent Christopher Miller ("Miller"), and
Great Meadow Sgt. C. Fraser ("Fraser") to respond
to retaliation claims; (2) McClenning to respond to
Plaintiff's First Amendment access-to-court claim; (3)
Miller, Eastman, and Fraser to respond to Eighth Amendment
conditions of confinement claims; and (4) Eastman and Miller
to respond to Fourteenth Amendment due process claims.
See Id. at 14-16, 18, 20, 27, 28-29 . On January 19,
2017, defendants filed an Answer. Dkt. No. 27.
August 30, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary
injunctive relief seeking an Order transferring him to
Sullivan Correctional Facility ("Sullivan C.F.").
Dkt. No. 34 at 1. At the time Plaintiff filed the motion, he
was confined at Five Points Correctional Facility ("Five
Points C.F.") and claimed that he was threatened and
retaliated against by unidentified staff. See Id. In
a Decision and Order filed on October 12, 2017 (the
"October Order"), the Court denied Plaintiff's
motion because Plaintiff requested relief against individuals
were not parties to the action. Dkt. No. 40 at 4. The Court
further concluded that Plaintiff could not demonstrate a
likelihood of success on the merits, or sufficiently serious
questions going to the merits and a balance of hardships in
his favor, because his request for injunctive relief was
unrelated to the defendants and claims in this action.
See Id. at 5.
before the Court is Plaintiff's second motion for
injunctive relief. Dkt. Nos. 50, 58, 60, and 63 (submissions
in support). Defendants oppose the motion. Dkt. No. 56.
related to preliminary injunctions was discussed in the
October Order and will not be restated herein. See
Dkt. No. 40 at 2-4. In the October Order, the Court denied
Plaintiff's request holding that, "[t]o the extent
that Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief against individuals
[unidentified corrections officers at Five Points C.F.], who
are not defendants in this action, injunctive relief is
available against non-parties only under very limited
circumstances, none of which are present here."
Id. The Court also concluded:
Even if the court could provide relief requested, the issues
underlying Plaintiff's request for injunctive relief are
unrelated to the defendants and the claims in this action.
The Complaint contains First Amendment, Eighth Amendment, and
Fourteenth Amendment claims arising out of incidents that
occurred at Shawangunk C.F. and Great Meadow C.F.
See Compl., generally. The issues
surrounding Plaintiff's three-day cell confinement and
threatening behavior by unidentified individuals at Five
Points C.F. are wholly unrelated to Plaintiff's
underlying claims. Thus, Plaintiff cannot establish a
likelihood of success on the merits of his underlying claim
and Plaintiff's request for relief is denied. See
Lewis v. Johnston, No. 9:08-CV-0482 (TJM/ATB), 2010 WL
1268024, at *3 (N.D.N.Y. Apr. 1, 2010) (denying motion for
injunctive relief based upon actions taken by staff at Great
Meadow Correctional Facility in 2010, where the complaint
alleged wrongdoing that occurred at Franklin and Upstate
Correctional Facilities in 2006 and 2007); see also
Mitchell v. New York State Dep't of Corr. Srvs. ...