138 F. Supp. 3d 182
N.D.N.Y.2015Background
- Pro se plaintiff Lor-cen Burroughs, a New York State prisoner, filed a § 1983 complaint alleging numerous constitutional violations by ~70 DOCCS staff across Coxsackie, Downstate, and Orleans C.F.s; he sought IFP status which was granted.
- Allegations include sexualized verbal conduct by CO Petrone, false misbehavior reports, retaliation for filing grievances (loss of showers/phones, confiscation of property), excessive force (handcuffing, assaults by CO McKeown), denial of medical care, mail and FOIL interference, and due-process defects in disciplinary hearings.
- The complaint was sparse on specific factual detail for many allegations but did include disciplinary records, grievances, and some medical/photographic evidence as exhibits.
- Court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b), dismissing numerous claims for failure to state a claim while allowing a limited set of claims to proceed.
- Claims that survived initial review and will be served: (1) retaliation via false misbehavior reports by Stetz, Mellet, and McKeown; (2) retaliation based on confiscation/denial of property by Stetz, Mellet, K. Baldwin, and Morris; (3) supervisory retaliation claim against Commissioner Fischer relating to Petrone; (4) excessive-force claims against McKeown (April 1 and April 12, 2013 incidents); and (5) failure-to-protect claims against John Doe #1 and Melendez for the April 2013 strip-frisk/transport incidents.
- The court dismissed (with prejudice and/or without prejudice as appropriate) many other claims (e.g., mere verbal harassment, isolated mail/FOIL interference, numerous supervisory and conspiracy claims) and flagged statute-of-limitations issues for events before July 23, 2012.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Verbal threats/harassment (Eighth Amendment) | Burroughs says staff threatened and harassed him repeatedly | Defendants argue verbal abuse alone is not actionable | Dismissed — verbal harassment alone insufficient under § 1983 |
| Sexual harassment by CO Petrone (Eighth Amendment) | Petrone masturbated in plaintiff's presence and made sexual threats | Defendants note no physical contact or injury alleged | Dismissed without prejudice — isolated verbal/visual sexual conduct insufficient to state Eighth Amendment claim |
| False misbehavior reports/false testimony | Burroughs alleges officers filed false reports and offered false testimony in hearings | Defendants argue false reports alone do not automatically create § 1983 liability | Some claims dismissed; retaliation-based false-report claims against Stetz, Mellet, McKeown survive and require response |
| Retaliation for grievances (First Amendment) — showers/phone | Burroughs alleges denial of showers/phone was retaliatory | Defendants stress de minimis nature and lack of specifics | Dismissed — isolated denials of showers/phone too minimal or inadequately pleaded |
| Retaliation — confiscation of property | Burroughs claims property was seized in retaliation for grievances | Defendants argue insufficient causal/allegation detail for many incidents | Survived as to Stetz, Mellet, K. Baldwin, Morris — retaliation/confiscation claims require response |
| Excessive force — handcuffs and assaults (Eighth Amendment) | Burroughs alleges overly tight handcuffs, a violent arm/shoulder manipulation and being slammed during strip-frisk | Defendants argue injuries were minor or lack specificity | Tight-handcuff claims dismissed for most defendants (no prolonged injury); but excessive-force claims against McKeown (April 1 & April 12 incidents) survived |
| Failure to protect from assault | Burroughs says staff ignored threats and incitement to assault by other inmates/officers | Defendants argue lack of presence/opportunity to intervene or lack of resulting harm | Failure-to-protect claims mostly dismissed, but claims against John Doe #1 and Melendez (present at strip-frisk) survived |
| Due process in disciplinary hearings (Fourteenth Amendment) | Burroughs alleges denial of witnesses, employee assistant, and false testimony | Defendants argue Sandin limits, lack of atypical hardship or prejudice from procedural errors | Many due-process claims dismissed for failure to plead atypical/ significant hardship or prejudice; one-year SHU sentence triggered plausible liberty interest but plaintiff failed to allege hearing prejudice adequately, so related process claims dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading standard requires plausibility)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (courts need not accept legal conclusions; plausibility standard)
- Boddie v. Schneider, 105 F.3d 857 (2d Cir. 1997) (sexual abuse by corrections officer can violate Eighth Amendment)
- Crawford v. Cuomo, 796 F.3d 252 (2d Cir. 2015) (intentional sexual contact by officer with inmate’s intimate areas violates Eighth Amendment)
- Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (unauthorized intentional deprivation of property does not violate federal due process if adequate state post-deprivation remedies exist)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (deliberate indifference standard for Eighth Amendment medical/protective claims)
- Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1 (use of excessive force analysis under Eighth Amendment)
- Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (minimum due process rights in prison disciplinary hearings)
- Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (liberty interest analysis for SHU confinement)