368 F. Supp. 3d 573
W.D.N.Y.2019Background
- Pro se plaintiff Jessie James Barnes, a pretrial detainee, sued numerous Monroe County Jail staff under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for events in 2008–2009 (fights, cell conditions, disciplinary process, retaliation, and jail practices). Many defendants were later dismissed; several claims proceeded to summary judgment.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment; Barnes cross-moved. The court resolved threshold recusal and a spoliation/sanctions motion and addressed merits on multiple claims.
- Key contested incidents: Aug. 7, 2008 fight (Newton response); Dec. 23, 2008 filthy reception cell; Jan. 19, 2009 mainframe housing attack; Feb. 26, 2009 assault/commissary theft; Mar. 11, 2009 grievance and disciplinary report; Aug. 12, 2009 use-of-force in visitation/elevator.
- The court relied on surveillance footage and record evidence where available; some videos were unavailable or technically unreadable, prompting a spoliation motion the court denied.
- Rulings: recusal denied; summary judgment granted in part and denied in part; cross-motion denied; sanctions and appointment of counsel denied. Remaining claims to proceed to trial were enumerated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Recusal of judge | Judicial decisions show bias; judge should recuse | Rulings against Barnes do not show bias | Denied — unfavorable rulings alone insufficient for recusal |
| Excessive force (Aug. 7, 2008 - Newton) | Newton used knee strike and punched; serious injury | Force was minimal, necessary to stop fight; video shows limited force | Granted for defendants — force objectively reasonable as matter of law |
| Excessive force (Aug. 12, 2009 - Shellard, Daly, Alberti, Galen) | Deputies pushed, slammed, kicked, stomped, and beat Barnes | Use was limited, in response to assaultive conduct by Barnes | Denied (both motions) — genuine factual disputes for trial |
| Conspiracy re: Aug. 7, 2008 | Amico/Danehy/Newton conspired to allow attack | No specific evidence of an agreement; records contradict conspiracy | Granted for defendants — plaintiff produced only conclusory allegations |
| Failure to protect/intervene (Jan. 19, May 2, Aug. 12 claims) | Transfers and staff conduct knowingly exposed Barnes to risk; some guards directed attacks | Defendants followed classification procedures and lacked notice or involvement | Mixed: summary judgment granted for some defendants (e.g., Waud for Jan. 19); other claims survived (Tripoli, Willis, Willis re: May 2, Lipari for Aug. 12) |
| Retaliation (Feb. 26 and Mar. 11) | Guards permitted or caused assaults/false misbehavior reports in response to grievances | Adverse acts were independent responses to inmate conduct or truthful reports | Denied (both motions) — genuine issues of material fact exist |
| Due process (disciplinary hearing Mar. 28, 2009) | False report and unlawful punishment violated due process | State courts already adjudicated related claims | Denied for plaintiff — claim barred by collateral estoppel (state Article 78 decision) |
| Conditions of confinement (Dec. 23 reception cell; SHU lighting) | Filthy reception cell and constant SHU lighting harmed health and amounted to unconstitutional conditions | Trustees clean cells; lighting complies with standards and serves safety | Reception-cell claim survives summary judgment (factual dispute); SHU lighting claim dismissed on qualified immunity grounds |
| Spoliation / sanctions (missing surveillance video) | Defendants destroyed/withheld tapes; seek sanctions and exclusion | Some tapes preserved or lost for technical reasons; many defendants lacked control over tapes | Denied — plaintiff failed to show destroyed tapes would have been favorable and that defendants with control acted culpably |
| Appointment of counsel | Pro bono counsel needed given complexity and plaintiff's pro se status | Plaintiff previously litigated capably and pro bono counsel withdrew after conflicts; claims not overly complex | Denied — plaintiff can proceed pro se and prior issues weigh against appointment |
Key Cases Cited
- Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 576 U.S. 389 (2015) (pretrial detainee excessive-force claim judged by objective‑reasonableness standard)
- Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312 (1986) (deference to prison officials in response to prison disturbances)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (force claims analyzed under objective standard; Fourth Amendment context cited)
- Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1 (1992) (seriousness of injury relevant to excessive-force/Eighth Amendment analysis)
- Darnell v. Pineiro, 849 F.3d 17 (2d Cir. 2017) (pretrial detainee deliberate indifference standard: objective risk and intent/recklessness)
- Anderson v. Branen, 17 F.3d 552 (2d Cir. 1994) (duty of law‑enforcement officers to intervene to protect constitutional rights)