Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Ford v. Deacon

United States District Court, N.D. New York

January 23, 2018

COREY FORD, Plaintiff,
v.
SGT. R. DEACON, et. al., Defendants.

          COREY FORD Plaintiff, pro se

          KYLE W. STURGESS, ESQ

          HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN KYLE W. STURGESS, ESQ. New York State Attorney General Attorney for Defendant

          DECISION AND ORDER

          MAE A. D' AGOSTINO U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.

         I. INTRODUCTION

         Presently 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.

         II. BACKGROUND

         In June 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.

         On 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.

         Presently before the Court is Plaintiff's second motion for injunctive relief. Dkt. Nos. 50, 58, 60, and 63 (submissions in support).[1] Defendants oppose the motion. Dkt. No. 56.

         III. DISCUSSION

         The law 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. ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.