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.

Hatcher v. Doe

United States District Court, N.D. New York

April 4, 2018

JONT'E L. HATCHER, Plaintiff,
v.
PAROLE OFFICER JOHN DOE #1, et. al., Defendants.

          JONT'E L. HATCHER PLAINTIFF, PRO SE

          DECISION AND ORDER

          BRENDA K. SANNES UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         I. INTRODUCTION

         Pro se 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. Compl.").

         II. LEGAL STANDARD

         The 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.").

         III. OCTOBER ORDER and SUMMARY OF AMENDED COMPLAINT

         In the 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.

         In the 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.

         In the 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.[1] See Am. Compl. at 1, 3, 4. The Amended Complaint does not include any claims against Yelich.[2]

         The 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.[3] 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.

         On 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.

         In 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.[4]Presently, Plaintiff is confined at Watertown Correctional Facility ("Watertown C.F."). Dkt. No. 17.

         Construing 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, ...


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.