325 F. Supp. 3d 249
N.D.N.Y.2018Background
- Plaintiff Lorcen Burroughs, a New York state prisoner, filed a pro se § 1983 complaint arising from events after the June 2015 escape of two inmates; alleges assault, denial of medical care, SHU/keeplock confinement, property loss, religious interference, and retaliation.
- He initially filed two IFP applications; the first was defective and denied, the second granted; court found no §1915(g) bar.
- Events occurred at Clinton C.F., Upstate C.F., and Great Meadow C.F.; plaintiff alleges Doe #5 assaulted him (slammed face into gate, threats, tight handcuffs), others failed to intervene or denied care/property.
- Complaint named 33 defendants and asserted multiple claims (First, Eighth, Fourteenth Amendments; conspiracy; state torts; violations of DOCCS directives); many defendants were unnamed John/Jane Does.
- The court conducted initial screening under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A and dismissed numerous claims and many named defendants for failure to state a claim, but allowed a limited set of claims to proceed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| IFP status and fees | Burroughs sought to proceed IFP | DOCCS procedural requirements initially not met | Second IFP application granted; first denied as incomplete |
| Excessive force (Doe #5) | Doe #5 slammed plaintiff's face into a gate, threatened him, handcuffed tightly causing cuts and concussion | Defendants argued (implicitly) conduct insufficiently pleaded or justified by security needs | Excessive-force claim against Doe #5 survives initial screening and must be answered |
| Failure to protect (Doe #6, Woods) | Doe #6 and Woods observed or were present and failed to intercede | Defendants argued absence of personal involvement or knowledge | Failure-to-protect claims against Doe #6 and Woods survive initial screening |
| Deliberate medical indifference (Nurse Fitzgerald & others) | Medical staff and some non-medical officers denied or delayed treatment for injuries | Medical records and visit documented; plaintiff’s allegations insufficient to show serious need or deliberate indifference | Claim against Fitzgerald and most non-medical staff dismissed; claim against Nurse Doe #3 (who allegedly ignored bloody, non-speaking plaintiff) survives |
| Conditions of confinement / SHU & keeplock due process | Plaintiff alleges denial of clothing, hygiene, water/toilet, commissary, and untimely/coerced disciplinaries | Defendants argued deprivations were temporary, not "atypical and significant," and state post-deprivation procedures exist | Conditions and procedural due process claims dismissed for failure to plead atypical/significant hardship or process violation |
| Property deprivation (Fourteenth Amendment) | Personal property lost/damaged and administrative claim denied | Adequate state post-deprivation remedies (Court of Claims, etc.) available | Fourteenth Amendment property claims dismissed; state remedies adequate |
| First Amendment: Religious freedom & speech/association | Denial of Koran/prayer rug/Ramadan meal and restrictions on speech/association | Alleged incidents were intermittent/de minimis; plaintiff failed to plead sincere, substantial burden or identify personal involvement | Religious, speech, and association claims dismissed for failure to plead substantial burden, sincerity, or personal involvement |
| Retaliation (various defendants) | Plaintiff alleges retaliation for complaints/refusal to inform and for grievances (urine tests, false reports, property denials) | Many defendants lacked plausible causal connection or knowledge of protected activity; some alleged acts are de minimis or investigative omissions | Retaliation claims survive against Doe #3, Doe #4, Doe #5, Doe #6, Doe #7, Woods, Shattuck, and Uhler; retaliation claims dismissed as to several other named defendants for lack of causal facts |
| Conspiracy and failure-to-investigate | Defendants conspired to cover up assault and failed to investigate | Allegations are conclusory and lack factual specificity | Conspiracy and failure-to-investigate claims dismissed for vagueness and lack of factual support |
| State-law torts and DOCCS directive violations | Negligence, IIED, NIED, and DOCCS-directive violations alleged | State remedial schemes or statute of limitations bar or make federal claim inappropriate | State-law claims dismissed (some on timeliness or subsumed by federal claims); violations of DOCCS directives not actionable under §1983 |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (lawyer-like conclusions not accepted; supervisory liability principles)
- Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1 (excessive force Eighth Amendment analysis)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (failure-to-protect and deliberate indifference standard)
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (deliberate indifference to serious medical needs)
- Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (state post-deprivation remedies bar §1983 due process claim for property loss)
- Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (liberty interest analysis for disciplinary segregation)