United States District Court, N.D. New York
JONT'E L. HATCHER, Plaintiff,
PAROLE OFFICER JOHN DOE #1, et. al., Defendants.
JONT'E L. HATCHER PLAINTIFF, PRO SE
DECISION AND ORDER
K. SANNES UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
plaintiff Jont'e Hatcher ("Plaintiff")
commenced this civil rights action 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."). By
Decision and Order filed on October 30, 2017 (the
"October 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. See Dkt. No. 11. On the
basis of that review, the Court dismissed the Complaint for
failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
See Id. In light of his pro se status, Plaintiff was
afforded an opportunity to submit an Amended Complaint.
See Id. at 14-15. Presently before the Court is
Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. Dkt. No. 19 ("Am.
legal standard governing the dismissal of a pleading for
failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915A(b)
was discussed at length in the October Order and it will not
be restated in this Decision and Order. See Dkt. No.
11 at 2-4. The Court will construe the allegations in the
Amended Complaint with the utmost leniency. See,
e.g., Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520
(1972) (holding that a pro se litigant's complaint is to
be held "to a less stringent standards than formal
pleadings drafted by lawyers.").
OCTOBER ORDER and SUMMARY OF AMENDED COMPLAINT
original Complaint, Plaintiff alleged that defendants John
Doe #1, John Doe #2, and John Doe #3 violated his Fourteenth
Amendment Due Process rights because he was illegally
confined in DOCCS' custody beyond his release date.
See Compl, generally. Due to the
miscalculation of his sentence, Plaintiff was assaulted,
placed in the Special Housing Unit ("SHU"), and
missed the birth of his child. See Id. Plaintiff
asserted supervisory claims against Yelich, the
Superintendent at Bare Hill C.F., related to the assault and
SHU confinement. See Id. Plaintiff sought monetary
damages. See id.
October Order, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's claims the
John Doe defendants holding that the Complaint lacked facts
suggesting that the defendants were personally involved in
alleged constitutional violations. See Dkt. No. 11
at 7, 10. Additionally, the Court reasoned that
Plaintiff's Due Process claims were barred by Heck v.
Humphrey. See Id. at 7-9. Plaintiff's
claims against Yelich were dismissed for failure to allege
facts establishing that Yelich was personally involved in any
constitutional violations. See Id. at 9-11. The
Court also concluded that Plaintiff did not have a
constitutional right to be present at the birth of his child.
See Id. at 11-12.
Amended Complaint, Plaintiff adds the following new
defendants: DOCCS, Division of Parole for Orange County,
Division of Parole for Dutchess County, John Doe #4 Parole
Officer, and John Doe #5, Parole Supervisor. See Am.
Compl. at 1, 3, 4. The Amended Complaint does not include any
claims against Yelich.
facts asserted in the Amended Complaint are largely identical
to the facts asserted in the Complaint. On March 19, 2006,
Plaintiff was sentenced to six years imprisonment and one
year and six months of post-release supervision
("PRS"). Am. Compl. at 6. In December 2011,
Plaintiff was released from DOCCS' custody. Id.
On November 5, 2012, Plaintiff was charged with violating the
terms of his release and returned to DOCCS' custody.
Id. On December 26, 2012, Plaintiff was released
from DOCCS' custody. Id. On August 7, 2013,
Plaintiff violated the terms of his release. Compl. at 6. In
October 2013, Plaintiff attended a parole hearing at the
Orange County Jail. Id. Plaintiff was told by
"the parole lady" that he "owed" one
year, nine months, and twenty-four days. Id.
October 24, 2013, Plaintiff was sent to Downstate
Correctional Facility ("Downstate C.F."). Am.
Compl. at 6. Three weeks later, Plaintiff was transferred to
Bare Hill C.F. Id. On November 22, 2013, Plaintiff
was assaulted by another inmate. Id. As a result,
Plaintiff was sentenced to sixty days in the SHU.
Id. On December 17, 2013, Plaintiff's first
child was born. Compl. at 6.
January 2014, Plaintiff attended a parole hearing and was
advised that his new release date was February 14, 2014.
Compl. at 6. In February 2014, Plaintiff was transferred to
Riverview Correctional Facility ("Riverview C.F.").
Id. On March 2, 2014, Plaintiff was released.
Id. On December 10, 2015, Plaintiff returned to
DOCCS' custody.Presently, Plaintiff is confined at
Watertown Correctional Facility ("Watertown C.F.").
Dkt. No. 17.
the Amended Complaint liberally, Plaintiff claims that he was
illegally confined beyond his October 3, 2013 release date in
violation of his Fourteenth Amendment Due Process rights.
See Am. Compl. at 7. Plaintiff claims that due to
the miscalculation of his sentence, he was assaulted at Bare
Hill C.F., placed in the SHU, ...